News:

This discussion group is best enjoyed using Google Chrome, Firefox or Safari.


Garland Bayley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Why is the USGA opposed to a rollback of the ball ?
« Reply #475 on: December 08, 2017, 07:17:59 PM »
I find it hard to believe that the skill level of the average golfer is increasing. I even find it hard to believe the scores of the average golfer are improving.

I would find it easier to believe that the participation rate of the average golfer is decreasing.

The average golfers is now being sold clubs that are an inch longer than the traditional clubs before club manufacture began to go high tech. I.e., graphite shafts are being used.

The average golfer used to be able to hit his 7 iron well. Now he can hardly hit a 7 iron, because it really is a 5 iron, which he could not hit well back in the old days.

The average golfer is being sold a bill of goods by telling him he needs a lob wedge, which he can't even hit as well as he could hit that old 5 iron.

The biggest lowering of my handicap came when I went back to the old shorter length, steel shafted clubs. Also went to jumbo grips. Don't know how much that helped, but I always had found standard sized grips to be ridiculously small after having played baseball as my primary summer sport.
"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

Garland Bayley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Why is the USGA opposed to a rollback of the ball ?
« Reply #476 on: December 08, 2017, 08:16:45 PM »
Pete,


I live in the Philadelphia suburbs and cannot think of a 7,500 yard course within 100 miles of here. I'm sure there's one, but I think you set up a false hypothetical.

Had Merion had the property available, the USGA would have wanted extensions approaching 7500 yards would it not have?

After all, extensions took Pinehurst to 7562, Congressional to 7574, Bethpage to 7426, and Torrey Pines to 7698.

Another factor that may have been at play is that shortly after the distance explosion demonstrated by the optimization of the use of the new ball was the great recession, and the significant reduction in players. Philly would probably be better served by making the current courses viable than by trying to find the land to build new courses at great expense.

"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

John Kavanaugh

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Why is the USGA opposed to a rollback of the ball ?
« Reply #477 on: December 08, 2017, 08:17:43 PM »
It's quite simple. Entitled millenials are not above carrying false handicaps. They grow up learning that everyone wins. They don't even know it is cheating.

Peter Pallotta

Re: Why is the USGA opposed to a rollback of the ball ?
« Reply #478 on: December 08, 2017, 11:24:03 PM »
Re: are we getting better?

The majority of golfers in North America don’t maintain a handicap.

Well, that’s not quite true. From what I’ve seen, we do maintain a handicap. Our handicap is that we’re terrible golfers.

I mean, just awful. And about exactly as awful as the majority of golfers have always been. 

And if we putted out everything and played by the rules and kept score properly, the majority of that majority (of awful golfers) would never break 100. Ever.

Jeff and Erik and Rich - they run in different circles than I do. They and everyone they know is taking/has taken lessons, and/or maintains a handicap, or they’re British.

They are thus shielded (and blind to) the sheer terribleness of most of North America’s 30 million people who play golf. Calling us golfers is stretching the word almost beyond recognition.

As Nicklaus said: what the modern golf ball and the 46 inch titanium driver means to the majority of average golfers (who are awful) is that they now slice it even further into the woods.

You think you can’t get a banana ball with modern equipment? Think again — as well as countless smothers and shanks and duffs and pull-hook-fat-low-slices. Luckily, the majority of golfers grant each other mulligans, and don’t watch the drops too carefully. Average golfers score a lot of “doubles” that way.

(Btw a rarely mentioned benefit of playing persimmon — I don’t hit it far enough to hit it out of bounds. I come by my double bogeys fair and square!)

You know what's made the modern game more "fun"? It's not the equipment -- it's that a lot of courses (especially public and daily fees) have learned how to cheat, how to trick us.

From "the blues" the hole is 390 yards, says the card. But it actually isn't. It's 370 yards. And then the tees are up, so it's 360 yards. And it's downhill -- all the way to the 150 yard marker.

The average golfer with his new driver who just hit it to the 150 marker thinks he hit it 240 yards -- not bad, he thinks, not my best but not bad....and so he's having fun! But what we'll never realize is that, actually, we probably just carried it more like 190, and it rolled out (downhill) for a 200 drive. 
« Last Edit: December 08, 2017, 11:26:14 PM by Peter Pallotta »

Bryan Izatt

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Why is the USGA opposed to a rollback of the ball ?
« Reply #479 on: December 09, 2017, 04:14:43 AM »



A few years ago the USGA Quintavalla study demonstrated that higher swing speeds actually suffered a small decline in the yards gained per mph of swing speed.  They attributed this fall off to increasing inefficiency of the strike as club head sppeds got higher.  For the most part though, the red line in their chart following shows that the yards gained per mph is pretty much linear at 3 yards per mph. 


I took the liberty of adding three other lines.







The blue line is a mythical wet dream for the 99% and the ball companies (who would make a fortune marketing such a ball) which would give slower swingers a step up in trying to catch the big hitters.  In my opinion, this ball will never exist - it defies the laws of physics.


The yellow line is what the 10% roll back crowd want to happen - a ball that dials the top back 30 yards and the 90 mph hitter on 22 yards.  This effectively changes the slope of the line - again I don't think that'll be physically possible. 


The orange line is what will most likely happen in a 10% roll back at the top end.  The 90 mph swinger will end up somewhere around 190 yards.  Not very appealing to me at least.


By the way the way the easiest way to regulate, implement and enforce a roll back would be to reduce the initial velocity and ODS standards and make the ball either a bit bigger to increase drag or make the ball lighter.  No need to get into spin or dimples or other impossible to regulate areas.


Is it possible that balls could experience another quantum leap in distance under the current regulations?  Not likely in my opinion.  The current initial velocity and ODS standards mean that a ball can't get any faster off the club head and still conform.  Unless someone can invent a ball that has improved aerodynamics that reduce drag then I don't see how a ball will travel further if it's launched with an initial 174 mph.  Current practice has optimized the launch angle and spin rate for maximum distance.


The only loophole that I see that exists is that new, stronger, lighter materials are used in drivers so that they can be swung under control at higher than 120 mph.  There are, of course, already long hitting pros that swing faster than 120 mph, and achieve ball speed that exceed the initial velocity of 174 mph.  The USGA and the R&A could close that loophole by just maintain their initial velocity and ODS standard where they are but have them tied to a 130 mph swing speed.


I suspect that the creep in the PGA Tour average distance is the result of survival of the fitest - longer players are joining the tour and knocking off shorter hitters.  I also suspect that would happen whether the courses are longer or shorter.  Length is a competitive advantage.


As a sidelight, I spent some time this week in a simulator with a Slazenger Supremo persimmon driver I picked up in Scotland this summer, Callaway Epic Sub-zero and a Bridgestone E6 and an old Tour Balata 90 and Professional 100.  The latter two have dried out over the years and have lost a gram or 2, so they may not be representative.  I also used a graphite shafted Wishon cavity back thin faced 7 iron that had the old standard loft and my current Mizuno JPX EZ 7 iron that is 3 degrees stronger (so close to a 6 iron from the old days).


Fifty years ago in my prime I used to hit my Wilson Staff 7 iron 150 yards.  The Wishon 7 iron was on average maybe 10 yards shorter that my prime despite the graphite shaft and thin face.  The EZ was right around 150 yards.  So, clearly I've lost distance to age.  :(


The sim I was in measure ball speed pretty accurately.  With the Epic I was getting ball speed around 135 mph and occasionally as high as 140 mph.  That translates to about 220 yards in the real world.  The long hitter on tour get up to 175 mph ball speed and above, so 40 mph higher than me, so they should be 110 to 120 yards longer.  That sounds about right.


With the persimmon driver and the modern Bridgestone, the ball speeds were around 120 to 125 mph, so 10 - 15 mph less.  That should translate to say 35 less yards.  It is difficult to pick up the relatively heavy and a lot smaller persimmon driver and hit it solid, although I could do it in the 1960's.


In my prime I used to drive it about 225 yards, so I haven't lost much, if any distance with the modern driver, although I have lost it with the irons. 


I tried the Tour Balata and Professional with the persimmon driver and there was a slight loss of 2 or 3 mph in ball speed - surprisingly small considering the age of the balls.


The conclusion I would draw from this is that the driver is just as much, if not more of a culprit than the ball in the distance gains.


At my age and current playing abilities and length I'm not interested in a roll back.  I don't play competitively and I don't think I would have more fun if I was regulated back to driving the ball 190 yards.  I'm already moving up a tee.  I don't play any of the classic courses that are being desecrated, in the view of many, to compete with the distance of the elite few, so I'm not really concerned about that either.  My current modern home course has tee decks that go back to 7500 yards and nobody plays them, not even in the Canadian Open Monday qualifier.  I doubt there'd be much saving in maintenance by letting them go fallow.  Perhaps they make a good nursery to patch up other tees that need work.


As for bifurcation, I can't see any reason why the PGA Tour, who are in the entertainment business, would want to make their players shorter.  Distance sells, I think.




jeffwarne

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Why is the USGA opposed to a rollback of the ball ?
« Reply #480 on: December 09, 2017, 09:30:32 AM »
Bryan,
Very interesting and thorough analysis.
Thank you.


I do understand that no one wants to be 10-20 yards shorter overnight.
There may not be an existing tee at your course that allows you to play the exact game you've been playing if there were a rollback.
Interesting that yours is yet another course that I keep hearing is so rare that has a 7500 yard set of tees.
You provide compelling evidence that a rollback may not be perfect-especially for aging players like you and I.


I would offer that the current situation is not perfect either-or at least the reaction by course operators to technology's gains.
I do know many tennis players who dropped the game when it became so serve oriented and that they have made ball adjustments in an attempt to restore some of tennis' former lure. I would bet that was distressing to a powerful server.
I also know bowlers who dropped out when technology obsoleted a lot of their skill and high score and perfect games became commonplace.
In neither case is my evidence anything other than anecdotal.


Maybe the genie's too far out of the bottle-If we lose longtime players like yourself because the game is less fun-that's a problem.
I would argue that the distance loss would be the same relative to other players and a shorter set of tees would to some degree maintain the challenge---but the LAST thing I want to advocate is building MORE tees to accomodate that as you already have a back set laying unused. I certainly can't tell you how to feel about playing a different game and hitting it shorter.


I will tell you I have a few reduced flight balls that I have played with my regular driver that cut me about 15% where I ended up hitting it about 225-230.
I moved up a set of tees, found the walk FAR better as less up and back walks,and suddenly the course had wider corridors and wider fairways, with the scale of the course far more. The jump up in tees wasn't perfect, as they are not exactly proportional on each hole (thank God) but on average I hit about the same clubs in-the difference is, I was much more often in play off the tee with 15% more width. In fact the game felt very similar to how I played in the late 80
s and 90's when wildness caused me to use a 3 wood quite often for control off the tee.




Scale-in my opinion is what has been lost-especially for younger long ball mid-high handicappers who have trouble keeing it within the corridors.


I do think this lends itself best to classic courses where scale is being rapidly lost, but I can also see a case where Bryan might want to maintain his current distance as scale may not be a problem at his age.
As I've stated before, I really see no problem with 2, 3 or 4 types of of ballsbeing mainstream either.(current balls we'll call 100%ers,90%ers and 80%ers for Super elite macho guys)
I can see a group of low handicappers going out at current 6300 Southampton or 6400 yard Palmetto and declaring "Tips and 90%ers", the same way we I grew up often playing "one foot in the rough" at Augusta CC.

I will say I'm sick of FONT bifurcation when typing on this site!!!


As far as handicaps, they are a joke anyway for nearly all and they are what the player wants them to be. A UK type of system that counts tournament scores rather than BS casual rounds would be effective for the group I mention above.(as well as most groups)


So IMHO bifurcation is probably best, but I see a path where self bifurcation, or event mandated bifurcation could be interesting and fun for many levels of players-especially for those fortunate to be at classic shorter courses.
« Last Edit: December 09, 2017, 09:53:07 AM by jeffwarne »
"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

Peter Pallotta

Re: Why is the USGA opposed to a rollback of the ball ?
« Reply #481 on: December 09, 2017, 09:37:31 AM »
Yes - very good to see you posting, Bryan.
I always enjoy your details, insights and analysis.
You’ve made me want to get to an indoor hitting bay/simulator. It’s been more than a decade since I last measure my swing speed. (Wait - maybe I don’t want to know....)
Peter


John Kavanaugh

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Why is the USGA opposed to a rollback of the ball ?
« Reply #482 on: December 09, 2017, 10:01:30 AM »




I will tell you I have a few reduced flight balls that I have played with my regular driver that cut me about 15% where I ended up hitting it about 225-230.
I moved up a set of tees, found the walk FAR better as less up and back walks,and suddenly the course had wider corridors and wider fairways, with the scale of the course far more. The jump up in tees wasn't perfect, as they are not exactly proportional on each hole (thank God) but on average I hit about the same clubs in-the difference is, I was much more often in play off the tee with 15% more width. In fact the game felt very similar to how I played in the late 80
s and 90's when wildness caused me to use a 3 wood quite often for control off the tee.




Scale-in my opinion is what has been lost-especially for younger long ball mid-high handicappers who have trouble keeing it within the corridors.





Jeff,


A few comments back you mentioned how you wanted to be that old guy who kept the ball in play and beat the younger longer hitters. That old guy who beat us when we were young and stupid. Now it feels like you want to protect the young long hitter from himself by introducing virtual width through technology.

jeffwarne

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Why is the USGA opposed to a rollback of the ball ?
« Reply #483 on: December 09, 2017, 10:17:32 AM »
Well summed up again John-though I enjoy playing with that old guy, I doubt I'll ever be im as I'm pretty wild.


Not introducing width, but rather RE-introducing width.




That said, I think if I played Victoria National I'd want to play the 4000 yard tees with a 60% ball
"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

John Kavanaugh

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Why is the USGA opposed to a rollback of the ball ?
« Reply #484 on: December 09, 2017, 10:18:22 AM »
I am glad that we have established that if the ball is rolled back fairways will be made narrower to present an equal challenge at those courses that want to remain competitive.

jeffwarne

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Why is the USGA opposed to a rollback of the ball ?
« Reply #485 on: December 09, 2017, 10:21:56 AM »
I am glad that we have established that if the ball is rolled back fairways will be made narrower to present an equal challenge at those courses that want to remain competitive.


That may well be the case at Huge scale Erin Hills and Chambers Bay-built to host "modern" championship
not so much elsewhere as narrow fairways are a misguided reaction to hot technolgy
"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

John Kavanaugh

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Why is the USGA opposed to a rollback of the ball ?
« Reply #486 on: December 09, 2017, 10:37:10 AM »
Looks like we are both being selfish. I don't want the short straight hitter punished and you want the long wild hitter rewarded. I've got to admit, life from the fairway is pretty sweet. Like you said earlier, the guys making a living don't hit driver all that often.

JMEvensky

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Why is the USGA opposed to a rollback of the ball ?
« Reply #487 on: December 09, 2017, 11:40:46 AM »
Yes - very good to see you posting, Bryan.
I always enjoy your details, insights and analysis.
You’ve made me want to get to an indoor hitting bay/simulator. It’s been more than a decade since I last measure my swing speed. (Wait - maybe I don’t want to know....)
Peter


+1 on Bryan posting.

Ken Moum

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Why is the USGA opposed to a rollback of the ball ?
« Reply #488 on: December 09, 2017, 11:51:01 AM »

The yellow line is what the 10% roll back crowd want to happen - a ball that dials the top back 30 yards and the 90 mph hitter on 22 yards.  This effectively changes the slope of the line - again I don't think that'll be physically possible. 

I think there is a way, and I've been preaching it for several years.  Make the damned ball a little bit lighter!

This is simple ballistics.  If you reduce the cross-sectional density of a projectile without chagin its shape you reduce its ballistic coefficient.  A projectile with a lowed ballistic coefficient  has a higher negative acceleration.

Over distance it loses more of its initial velocity that a projectile with a higher BC.

Where this comes into effect with golf balls (and the shotgun pellets I'm familar with) is that as velocity increases so does drag.

Given two spheres of equal weight, launched at different velocities, the faster one has more drag and loses speed at a higher rate. at some point they'll be going the same speed.

If you reduce the weight, this happens sooner.  So a light ball would "hurt" a Tour pro more than it would a Sr. women with 50 mph. clubhead speed.

More importantly, the lighter ball would, have a tendency to curve more (Think of a baseball and whiffle ball). This would especially be true as ball speeds increased.  That would also affect the Tour pro more as his ball would be going so fast, and flying so far. IMHO, the result would be that players would either have to gear down like to pros of the balata era, or they'd have to play balls that had less spin.  Just like the decision between balata and Rockflites.

Also, the lighter ball would react slightly more to backspin while it was in the air, giving the shortest hitters a little more carry.  OTOH Tour pros would find it harder to keep the ball from "ballooning."

Finally (I think) the lighter ball would sit up just a little better on the fairway, making it easier for the slowest swingers (women and seniors) to get in the air.

The trick, I'm pretty sure, would be to find the "sweet spot" where the ball did the things I have described above without creating the reviled "Balloon Ball" of 1930  (See Jon Van B's essay on it http://golfclubatlas.com/in-my-opinion/john-vander-borght-the-balloon-ball/)

Personally I think it would not be as light as 1.55 ounces, but given that ball maker's ability to control spin these days it might be that, or even lighter.  One caution from Jon's essay is that too light makes it impossible to control in the wind.

If anyone thinks that getting a lighter ball would be a strain on manufacturers, remember that golf ball materials are pretty light, and from what I can understand, they add heavier material to get them up to 1.68.

I think that going lighter would absolutely bring "shot making" back to pro golf as the guys who can control spin and velocity would get back some of what they've lost to the bombers.

The longest players would still be longer than anyone, because there's not enough difference in speed on Tour to compress the differences.

Perhaps my favorite aspect of a lighter ball is that it would give the ball makers a chance to do some real innovation. Dramatically new dimple patterns, significant differences in weight distribution for balls for different levels of players, experiments with cover materials to achieve the optimum balance between spin and directional control.

We HAVE to do it.

As for bifurcation, I can't see any reason why the PGA Tour, who are in the entertainment business, would want to make their players shorter.  Distance sells, I think.
Over time, the guy in the ideal position derives an advantage, and delivering him further  advantage is not worth making the rest of the players suffer at the expense of fun, variety, and ultimately cost -- Jeff Warne, 12-08-2010

John Kavanaugh

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Why is the USGA opposed to a rollback of the ball ?
« Reply #489 on: December 09, 2017, 12:08:14 PM »
Nothing anything any of you do is going to stop people from altering their personal private property.

John Kavanaugh

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Why is the USGA opposed to a rollback of the ball ?
« Reply #490 on: December 10, 2017, 03:48:31 PM »
I would think the performance of Lexi this week could put the talk of bifurcation to rest.

Jim Sherma

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Why is the USGA opposed to a rollback of the ball ?
« Reply #491 on: December 21, 2017, 09:01:00 PM »
The other day while getting some holes in I found an old school, small dimpled, octahedral patterned Top-Flite in decent looking shape. Played 7 holes with both the Top-Flite and an NXT-Tour. I was hitting the ball well and the performance comparison was interesting. Off the irons the distance was the same while the greens were too soft to compare spin rates. The Top-Flite was definitely harder feeling on chips and pitches. Off the tee the NXT-Tour seemed marginally longer, 5 yards maybe, on the three holes where I hit both balls equivalently well. The Top-Flite did duck a little more on mis-hits, likely due to the dimple pattern's aerodynamic deficiencies. If it was wrapped in urethane and had an XL-II dimple pattern it would be essentially an equivalent ball that is as a little firmer around the green. I did not not expect it to perform as well as it did as it's been 30 years or so since I've hit one of these anywhere other than out of a range bucket.

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back