Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture => Topic started by: Ira Fishman on June 13, 2022, 08:00:17 AM
-
No thread started yet?
-
I was a rabid oroponent of a rollback as early as the mid late 90's until very recently
Titleist Professional ball(at the time was a quantum leap from Titliest balata)
Oversized long and light Callaway Biggest Big bertha.
Then came the multi layer ball-speciifcally the ProV1, giving Topflite length yet appropriate spin with wedges.
Thin faced drivers with high CORS-limited to .83 in early 2000's, but far higher than wood and original metalwoods.
The higher COR, combined with lower spin balls, longer, more lightweight shafts(more speed), and oversized drivers with space age materials allowing more forgiveness without a loss of speed due to weight, all conspired to allow the ball to be hit significantly farther with a mere proper fitting without a commensurate improvement in technique or skill.
Then throw in improved physical conditioning, better knowledge, improved fitting skills, better technique and higher skill and you have the modern tour player.
and occasionally, the modern long and wrong athletic kid launching the ball far further offline into the neighbor's house.
Not all of that is bad per se, and we have many spirited debates on this topic so I won't rehash why I felt that way so long.
But the train began leaving the station 30 years ago, and certainly nearly all of the major innovations are 20 years old, and an entire generation has grown up playing that equipment, and know nothing else.
Billions has been spent retrofitting golf courses, etc. etc.
I'm guess I'm glad to hear the USGA has woken up to what I moaned about for YEARS.
BUT, Rip Van Winkle missed his window-by a mile.
AT LEAST 10-12 years too late, nearly 20 I'd say.
It's pretty much the same as if the USGA had decided to roll back to hickory in my youth when no virtually no one had used hickory for 30-40 plus years.
The ship sailed IMHO, and "better late than never" doesn't really apply when your group's putting out on #1 green.
I hate that it's come to this, but as I say to my staff, I hate complaints, but I hate them more when the complainer is correct.
i.e. a change now would be completely foreign to a majority of people who play or watch the game, and those familiar with old tech might not care anymore, or enjoy the new benefits of it, and think 300 plus in the air is the best form of golf entertainment(simply IMHO because it's all they've ever known)
So reluctantly, I completely understand why this simply is an idea who's time passed awhile ago, and can't possibly see who in power will rabidly support this.
-
Jeff:
I've talked to one or two players who would like to see things rolled back - maybe not as far as what the USGA is exploring, but significantly. They would like to get back to where hitting "shots" is rewarded, over just mashing the ball. One even said he doesn't know why he tries to hit a high draw anymore, half the time it just falls out of the air due to lack of spin, but he just can't stop trying to hit the shots he was so good at long ago.
I agree with you that it's too late to roll the driver back to something completely different. The elite players won't accept a rule that renders some of them non-elite. Half the younger guys would be unable to compete if the equipment changed that much.
-
Couple reactions to the above:
1. Re: any change being "foreign to a majority of people who play the game," I would just offer that while there are a lot of younger (Gen X, Millennial, Gen Z) people taking up golf, I don't think they are yet golf's core constituency, and they're certainly not who spends the majority of the money that makes the industry go. Golfers who knew and probably hit persimmon drivers are still an enormous percentage of the participation numbers, and they also happen to be the folks whose drives any rollback would affect the least. I would also add that every time I see upstart golf brands on Instagram invoking retro aesthetics and nostalgia for the 90s and early 2000s, I feel a little better that my generation actually wouldn't be that upset about a rollback.
2. I'm of two minds about Tom's statement that the youngest elite golfers would be "unable to compete" in the face of a significant rollback. My first reaction is to say, "So be it," because it would mean those players' current golf skillsets are actually not the ones most valued by the more balanced game that we pro-rollback folk would like to see. My second reaction, though, is that the young crop of golfers are as generally talented as ever, more athletic and better coached than any previous one, so I feel like the ones with the most talent would adapt quickly and ultimately stick around.
3. I wonder if the USGA and R&A are looking to give the impression that they've gone too far, in order to move the eventual settlement position closer to the bolder part of the range of possible changes that they'd be comfortable with and consider feasible.
I was paired with a relatively casual golfer last week - a doctor in his late 30s who had a full bag of late-90s/early-00s equipment: PING Darby putter, Cleveland 588 wedges, Hogan Apex Irons, Ping i3 woods and a Titleist 975D driver that he hit beautifully and, despite only being about a 10-rounds-a-year golfer, was able to manipulate high and low, mostly with a tight draw off the tee. I've never felt more confident that golfers could learn to deal with a driver head limit around that 275cc mark than I did after that round. But, to Jeff and Tom's points, I do wonder if the political will exists to affect changes like that. I think it would be great in the medium and long terms.
-
Jeff:
I've talked to one or two players who would like to see things rolled back - maybe not as far as what the USGA is exploring, but significantly. They would like to get back to where hitting "shots" is rewarded, over just mashing the ball. One even said he doesn't know why he tries to hit a high draw anymore, half the time it just falls out of the air due to lack of spin, but he just can't stop trying to hit the shots he was so good at long ago.
I agree with you that it's too late to roll the driver back to something completely different. The elite players won't accept a rule that renders some of them non-elite. Half the younger guys would be unable to compete if the equipment changed that much.
agreed 100% with the first paragraph, and spouted as much for 20-25 years.
And the game would be far more fun (for me) with spin, and for many? some? spectators
Just think those one-two guys you spoke to would be overwhelmed by the outcry.
Hope I'm wrong, but few are left who remember or care. (or got old)
Hopefully Tim's correct!
WTF took the organizations so freaking long?
As far as the second, I think there would be casualties, and some names might change, but I'm not ever knocking the skill and talent of the newer more properly technique and physical fitness informed.
To say nothing of the sheer number of better athletes who now choose golf cause it's not a niche ;) [size=78%] sport as it was when I was a kid.[/size]
-
Jeff,
Funny, when I tried to play some senior golf after turning 50, I hadn’t played much at all for 10+ years. All my clubs were from around 2000.
I searched and searched for a ball that would spin more. The clubs and balls produced little to no spin for me (my swing).
After not being able to find equipment to fix it, I changed my swing quite a bit to
A) pick up more height in my shots. (About 30 feet)
B) more spin. I picked up about 700RPM with my irons.
I had to stop playing again when my accident ruined my shoulder.
I e played a handful of times with my old irons (square grooves). It’s funny how short I hit it but hit irons so consistently with the easy spin from the irons!
No point to this for the arguments, but your “spin comment” got my interest!!
-
i agree that it is unlikely that we will see much is any roll-back of the equipment - Possibly in face flex and head size, but I think that is even unlikely. I think the only likely route forward is the ball being dialed back to possibly making it spin more at higher swing speeds. This would re-introduce the natural governor of the wound balls where they would become more and more difficult to control at higher swing speeds. Maybe re-introduce some combined standards around cover hardness and boll compression/spin to get back the trade-off seen between the top-flite vs the titleist tour balls.
-
I hate to keep beating this old drum, but there's ONE thing that would deliver almost everything you guys are talking about. And would only affect the cheapest, most disposable piece of equipment.
A slightly lighter ball would decelerate at a higher rate for high ball speeds than low ball speeds, curve more, stay in the air better at low ball speeds and overall be slightly shorter for those at the top of the game.
For the shortest hitters it would be easier to get in the air and fly farther.
I know John Vander Borght trashed the Balloon Ball here 13 years ago, but those balls were wound balata and both the diameter and the weight were changed at the same time. From 1.62 ounces and 1.62 inches, the balloon ball became 1.68 inches and only 1.55 ounces.
But today we've all been playing the "big" ball for decades and decades, and today's balls especially the ones most average players use, don't spin anything like the balls of the 30's and onward, so dropping a weight a bit won't create the problems of the past.
In fact, Spalding and now Callaway have sold balls that are even bigger than 1.62 inches, touting them as having the same advantages as I mentioned above.
It would not be necessary to go to 1.55 ounces, but a lighter ball would absolutely affect the longest hitters while potentially helping the shortest hitter.
The only real negative I heard anyone mention is that it would make chipping easier because the ball would sit up a little better.
-
The only real negative I heard anyone mention is that it would make chipping easier because the ball would sit up a little better.
why is that a negative?-given that it's been virtually removed from the game at many high end courses
-
The only real negative I heard anyone mention is that it would make chipping easier because the ball would sit up a little better.
why is that a negative?-given that it's been virtually removed from the game at many high end courses
Jeff,
What do you mean by virtually removed... are you talking about chipping or the ball sitting up or both?
-
The only real negative I heard anyone mention is that it would make chipping easier because the ball would sit up a little better.
why is that a negative?-given that it's been virtually removed from the game at many high end courses
I don't see it as a negative. either. But apparently some of the people who make these decisions do.
BTW, anyone who wonders how this can limit the top end while have no effect, or a benefit to the bottom end, have a look at how ballistic coefficient and drag are related.
The chart below shows that drag doubles between 100 mph and 150 mph, and about triples when you get into Bryson's 200 mph ball speed. So a ball starting at 80 mph has about a quarter of the initial drag of one at 210 mph. so the fast one will lose speed MUCH more quickly, it will always be faster, but the gap will close, until the fast one is down to 80 mph, and the slow one is probably on the ground.
Ballistic coefficient measures the ability of a projectile to overcome drag. Lowering the weight lowers the BC which means that the light ball will be affected more than a heavy one. This difference should affect the 200 mph ball the most, because it is in the air longer, and it will also mean the light one will be more affected by spin...think of a how a whiffle ball curves vs. a baseball. Of course a 1.58 ounce golf ball isn't a whiffle ball.
(https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/docs/documents/627/air_resistance_drag_force_coefficient.png)
-
I know John Vander Borght trashed the Balloon Ball here 13 years ago, but those balls were wound balata and both the diameter and the weight were changed at the same time. From 1.62 ounces and 1.62 inches, the balloon ball became 1.68 inches and only 1.55 ounces.
[size=78%].[/size]
Having just gone back and reread my Opinion piece from 2009, I did not trash the ball, but merely quoted the various opinions from the time on both sides (not that there were many supporters).
I will note that I wrote that piece before I went to work at the USGA. Now that I’ve retired I have no insight into the current thinking, it that I had much while I was 5ere as the folks in the Equipemt Standards department are very tight lipped about proposals.
-
I know John Vander Borght trashed the Balloon Ball here 13 years ago, but those balls were wound balata and both the diameter and the weight were changed at the same time. From 1.62 ounces and 1.62 inches, the balloon ball became 1.68 inches and only 1.55 ounces.
[size=78%].[/size]
Having just gone back and reread my Opinion piece from 2009, I did not trash the ball, but merely quoted the various opinions from the time on both sides (not that there were many supporters).
I will note that I wrote that piece before I went to work at the USGA. Now that I’ve retired I have no insight into the current thinking, it that I had much while I was 5ere as the folks in the Equipemt Standards department are very tight lipped about proposals.
Fair enough. Your comment at the end of the article might be the most accurate.
If the 1930 debacle is the deterrent, it's unfortunate because there's little doubt it would work.
And, FWIW, I wouldn't expect it to change scores much. It would change the way elite players approached the game
-
The only real negative I heard anyone mention is that it would make chipping easier because the ball would sit up a little better.
It would narrow the separation between better putters and worse putters. It'd (very slightly) reduce the skill of putting and (very slightly) increase the role of luck.
-
The only real negative I heard anyone mention is that it would make chipping easier because the ball would sit up a little better.
It would narrow the separation between better putters and worse putters. It'd (very slightly) reduce the skill of putting and (very slightly) increase the role of luck.
Because it wouldn't track as well?
Do you suppose that would be less noticeable on "perfect" greens?
Or would bumpier ones magnify it.
In the end it might be a worthwhile trade for getting one that requires more skill to control in the air.
-
Because it wouldn't track as well?
Yes. A lighter ball would be more likely to be bounced around/offline by stuff on the green. Skill plays a lesser role, luck a larger one.
-
It would narrow the separation between better putters and worse putters. It'd (very slightly) reduce the skill of putting and (very slightly) increase the role of luck.
Sigh...no.
-
Sigh...no.
Still yes, and people far smarter than you or I agree. The more randomness you add, the less the role of skill plays a role in the outcome.
-
Sigh...no.
Still yes, and people far smarter than you or I agree. The more randomness you add, the less the role of skill plays a role in the outcome.
Where are your sources?
-
If there is a shorter ball there will be complaints on the PGA Tour for a week then it will be over. These guys can play tournaments at altitude and get the hang of it in a few days. They are insanely good at their jobs.
-
Where are your sources?
I'm not having this discussion again as it'd be the third time. It's all there for others to see in the other topic(s).
Your responses thus far are "sigh, no" and "where are your sources?" So… "sigh, yes" and "where are your sources?" right back? But again, please understand… I don't really actually care, because you're incorrect here, and neither of us have changed our minds, so… there's no point.
These guys can play tournaments at altitude and get the hang of it in a few days.
No, they don't. They get used to it about as well as they can, because they have no other choice, but they still fly a few greens by 20 yards, or the wind treats the ball differently at altitude, etc. True ball testing takes an entire off-season or more. Talk to some of the guys who switch from Titleist to TaylorMade or whatever after a few years (i.e. when they're not just spinning positive for their new contract) and they'll tell you how many shots they hit before they truly trust it, truly understand it, etc.
There's a reason so many Tour players stick with, say, the 2017 Pro V1 or whatever.
They are insanely good. They're also insanely picky, as they should be, about their equipment (some more than others).
-
The only real negative I heard anyone mention is that it would make chipping easier because the ball would sit up a little better.
It would narrow the separation between better putters and worse putters. It'd (very slightly) reduce the skill of putting and (very slightly) increase the role of luck.
Because it wouldn't track as well?
Do you suppose that would be less noticeable on "perfect" greens?
Or would bumpier ones magnify it.
In the end it might be a worthwhile trade for getting one that requires more skill to control in the air.
Nearly 50% of all putts are played within 5 feet of the hole. From this distance, better putters make more putts in the middle of the cup, while worse putters are more likely to require the whole cup. A slightly lighter ball will be bounced around slightly more on any green compared to the current ball. Because the better putter’s putts are more likely tracking towards the middle of the hole, a small bounce is less likely to knock the ball out of the hole. As the weaker putter uses the entire hole, a small bounce is more likely to cause the putt to miss. Therefore, on short putts the lighter ball would actually emphasize putting skill, not detract from it. The lighter ball is a wonderful idea.
-
I'm not having this discussion again as it'd be the third time. It's all there for others to see in the other topic(s).
Third time having this discussion?
-
Nearly 50% of all putts are played within 5 feet of the hole.
And you can largely ignore the tap-ins, which take out a good chunk of that "nearly 50%."
From this distance, better putters make more putts in the middle of the cup, while worse putters are more likely to require the whole cup. A slightly lighter ball will be bounced around slightly more on any green compared to the current ball. Because the better putter’s putts are more likely tracking towards the middle of the hole, a small bounce is less likely to knock the ball out of the hole. As the weaker putter uses the entire hole, a small bounce is more likely to cause the putt to miss. Therefore, on short putts the lighter ball would actually emphasize putting skill, not detract from it.
Arguing your point gets a whole lot easier when you get to just make stuff up while ignoring anything (putts outside of five feet?) that don't help you.
Third time having this discussion?
Yep. It would be the third time for me.
-
Still yes, and people far smarter than you or I agree. The more randomness you add, the less the role of skill plays a role in the outcome.
Did you ever think about the perspective that maybe more "randomness" [also known as "difficulty"] would be BETTER for the sport? It would keep the game harder for the best players while the average guy might not even notice the difference.
-
Did you ever think about the perspective that maybe more "randomness" [also known as "difficulty"] would be BETTER for the sport?
Randomness is not the same as "difficulty."
Randomness can make golf more difficult, but that doesn't mean it's the same thing or "also known as." Randomness narrows the gap between skill levels, and you seem to agree with your second sentence. Golf will never be a game of no luck/randomness, but I don't think putting is where we should increase it, either.
-
I never understood the argument that an equipment rollback would make a certain subset of the competition not as competitive.
There's a universal truth to all golf competition.
Namely, there is a winner.
For each person made "uncompetitive" someone else is made "competitive."
-
Sigh...no.
Still yes, and people far smarter than you or I agree. The more randomness you add, the less the role of skill plays a role in the outcome.
Depends on where the randomness is applied.
Random swings are inherently a lack of skill.
Want to eliminate randomness? Eliminate it in your swing and I guarantee you'll be using skill.
-
Depends on where the randomness is applied.
Random swings are inherently a lack of skill.
Want to eliminate randomness? Eliminate it in your swing and I guarantee you'll be using skill.
That's not how it's being used and I think you know that.
I'd favor the word "consistency" instead of "randomness" when talking about the golf swing. Golfers of all levels are trying to be more "consistent" - nobody says "I want to be less random." More consistent golf swings that produce more consistent results are generally more skilled.
-
Did you ever think about the perspective that maybe more "randomness" [also known as "difficulty"] would be BETTER for the sport? It would keep the game harder for the best players while the average guy might not even notice the difference.
An increase in randomness is not applied to players uniquely. But, the distinction made here is the experience of that randomness will be associated differently by players of different skill levels. Those who are skilled enough to consistently hit shots with a clear expected outcome will be able to directly associate the impact of randomness to their scoring. While those players who are not consistent enough to repeatedly hit shots with a clear expected outcome would have a harder time associating their shot outcome with either their execution inconsistencies or an increase in challenge due to randomness. Even if the impact of randomness is greater to their game than the more skilled player.
-
Hearing that big changes are coming tomorrow.
As I've said…
- I don't think it's needed, but the best argument for it is sustainability, costs, etc. Not what PGA Tour players are doing.
- Any change will likely favor some players over others.
- I'm against bifurcation as it hurts everyone just below "the line" that's drawn. I'm hearing it's for pros only, so… bifurcation.
- If they do change things, I only hope that they understand what the results will be, as it would be silly for them to disrupt golf… only to watch players and equipment manufacturers work around it in a few months.
-
How can you say it would "disrupt golf" when, in the last two decades, we've seen a 60-70 yard increase - over two shots - in how far the ball goes at the top level?
That's the disruption.
Manufacturers are just another lobby group arguing their case - and who couldn't care less about the impact their technology has on the game,
That's fine - but someone needs to put boundaries around them.
-
How can you say it would "disrupt golf" when, in the last two decades, we've seen a 60-70 yard increase - over two shots - in how far the ball goes at the top level?
No, we haven't.
2003 Tour Average driving distance: 285.9 yards.
2022-23 Tour Average driving distance: 297.2 yards.
Heck, let's look at 1999… 271.6.
Now, maybe my calculator is broken, or I'm messing up the Australian exchange rate, but 297.2 - 271.6 is far short of 60-70 yards.
-
How can you say it would "disrupt golf" when, in the last two decades, we've seen a 60-70 yard increase - over two shots - in how far the ball goes at the top level?
That's the disruption.
Manufacturers are just another lobby group arguing their case - and who couldn't care less about the impact their technology has on the game,
That's fine - but someone needs to put boundaries around them.
With all due respect, this is incorrect. The average of the Tour leader in driving distance has increased 45 yds since 1980, which is over 40 years. The Tour average has changed by slightly less over the same period of time.
This doesn’t mean it’s not an issue (though I don’t think so) but we have NOT seen anything even close to a 60-70 yard increase in the entire time the Tour has kept stats, much less in the last 20 years. In the last 20 years, the leader’ average has gone up 12 yds, and the Tour average by 16 yds. Not only that, but more than half of the total change in the last 20 years happened in the first few years of that period; things are actually relatively stable now, and have been so for about a decade.
-
A. G., and Erik,
Please stop being the site wide leaders in misinformation.
Mike was saying over two shots.
-
Mike was saying over two shots.
He's still wildly off base, even if he was talking about two tee shots: 12 * 2 or 16 * 2 < 60-70 yards. Heck, going from 1999 and counting two tee shots doesn't even get you much past 50 yards.
I took the "over two shots" to mean how it affected scoring (AG seems to have done the same, perhaps)… but even if you wanted to account for that… players swing faster now, lofts are stronger now, etc. It's not a like-to-like comparison with the ball being the only difference (or even the "ball + oversized, lighter, longer-shafted drivers").
-
The first year of the Byron Nelson Award for the lowest scoring average was 1980, and the winning average in 2022 was less than two shots better than in 1980.
But even that is deceptive; the lowest averages were by Woods over 20 years ago (2000) and again in 2007.
If anyone can post a link to the overall Tour scoring averages year by year, I’d love to see it. I found a lot of stuff but not that.
-
2 * 45 = 90 ;)
-
2 * 45 = 90 ;)
Glad your calculator app is working again. Mike said in the last 20 years. The 45 yards is since 1980:
The average of the Tour leader in driving distance has increased 45 yds since 1980, which is over 40 years.
-
That's why the smiley face was there.
In 2002 John Daly averaged 306.8 yard drives
Recently Bryson averaged 329.2 yard drives
329.2 - 306.2 = 22.4
The next question is how much have they gained on the second shot since most advanced driver technology has been adapted to the fairway woods?
Another question is how are average drives measured? In the fairway? In the rough? One would think that hitting in the rough would shorten averages, and not be a true reflection of the advances in distance.
Yet another question is how much have agronomic practices effected the results. Faster fairways allow greater gains when hitting the fairway.
Final point. Both of your posts demonstrated failure to read the post you responded to. I.e., misinformation.
Over and out.
-
Did you happen to see what the players were hitting into #18 at the Players? When Fred Funk won he hit driver and had 174 yards for his second shot while Tom Lehman who was certainly much longer than Funk hit a 7 iron from 157 yards. I still don't see what's wrong with the pros or other elite golfers hitting different balls or clubs than all other golfers. It is purely a financial matter to appease the manufacturers.
-
Final point. Both of your posts demonstrated failure to read the post you responded to. I.e., misinformation.
Uhhhh, no. They didn't.
-
I don't know if scoring is a good measure either.
How long was a course now vs 25 years ago? If the current pros were playing from the 6800 yard tees from then instead of the 7600 yard tees now, how many fewer strokes would that translate to for the winner or even the last place guy who made the cut? I'm guessing that could easily be 2 shots per round or 8 strokes total..
Apples and Oranges...
-
How can you say it would "disrupt golf" when, in the last two decades, we've seen a 60-70 yard increase - over two shots - in how far the ball goes at the top level?
That's the disruption.
Manufacturers are just another lobby group arguing their case - and who couldn't care less about the impact their technology has on the game,
That's fine - but someone needs to put boundaries around them.
With all due respect, this is incorrect. The average of the Tour leader in driving distance has increased 45 yds since 1980, which is over 40 years. The Tour average has changed by slightly less over the same period of time.
This doesn’t mean it’s not an issue (though I don’t think so) but we have NOT seen anything even close to a 60-70 yard increase in the entire time the Tour has kept stats, much less in the last 20 years. In the last 20 years, the leader’ average has gone up 12 yds, and the Tour average by 16 yds. Not only that, but more than half of the total change in the last 20 years happened in the first few years of that period; things are actually relatively stable now, and have been so for about a decade.
Over 2 shots - and I shouldn't have said "two decades" The ProV was 2000 - so 25 years is more accurate.
Daly was 299 in 1998.Woods 296 No one else was over 290.
1988 3 players were over 280.
270 was somewhere close to the longest driver in 1980.
Rory is now 326 - so that's at least 50 yards longer than 1980. Then add a 3 wood and it'e easily 60-70 yards in total.
600 yards is the new 530.
-
Out of curiosity, because I really don't know the answer: how far would the average pro hit the combination "driver + 8 iron" 20, 30, 40 years ago, and how far do they hit it now?
-
I sense a drum roll.
atb
-
From various sources:
Ben Hogan
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DSErHIJUMAABu3V?format=jpg&name=900x900)
Jack Nicklaus
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DSEL6VlWkAgToEW?format=jpg&name=900x900)
Greg Norman
(https://shark.com/assets/img/lesson-80.jpg)
Dustin Johnson
M1 Driver: 312 yards
M1 3-wood: 282 yards
M1 5-wood: 267 yards
2-iron UDI: 261 yards
4-iron: 236 yards
5-iron: 225 yards
6-iron: 212 yards
7-iron: 200 yards
8-iron: 186 yards
9-iron: 172 yards
PW: 158 yards
Although we fixate on driver distance, there have been impressive gains in iron distances amongst the tour players as well. Min Woo Lee was hitting an iron close to 300 yards off the tee on Sunday.
It seems Mike wasn't too far off with his assertion of two shot total distance difference over 30 or 40 years.
-
I took some comfort in reading the following excerpt from a Nicklaus article from a couple of years ago in the TCPalm. It seems that our distances and scores are not too far apart now although he's a few years older than me - not that I was ever anywhere near being in his league. The great ball debate has little bearing in how either of us or any other super-seniors play the game.
"At first, Nicklaus struggled with not being the stud who was a five-time PGA Player of the Year or whose career led to his induction into the World Golf Hall of Fame in 1974. “I didn’t have much thrill shooting 75,” he said. “Now, I get a thrill breaking 80.”
Nicklaus says his average drive is about 220 yards (he does not believe he can carry the ball 200 yards) and his club head speed is down in recent years from about 96 mph to 82 mph.
The last time he played was Dec. 30. He shot a 78 from the members tees at the Bear’s Club. He had 12 pars and six bogeys.
“I never make birdies,” he said. “I don’t think I made a birdie in November, or October.”"
-
Thanks, Bryan, that's very interesting. So the two-club total of driver plus 8 iron was 390 yards (1950's), 395 yards (1960's), 413 yards (1980's), 498 yards (2010's). So that's +85 yards in 30 years, I assume due to a combination of ball, clubs, course maintenance, practice regime and fitness regime. Not picking sides here, just genuinely curious to see how much of a difference rolling back one of those elements will make. It'll be an interesting experiment.
-
2 * 45 = 90 ;)
Glad your calculator app is working again. Mike said in the last 20 years. The 45 yards is since 1980:
The average of the Tour leader in driving distance has increased 45 yds since 1980, which is over 40 years.
Mike's point is that an untouchable 3 shot 600 yard par 5 is now routinely touchable in TWO shots.
Used to be 280(for a big hitter) plus 240, now it's 320, plus 290 3 wood.
I just watched Justin Rose hit 3 wood pin high on a 300 yard plus par 4 at The Players.
Many's the time driver was used by a Tour player off the deck from 250, now it's a 3 iron.
It doesn't matter why(se my previous detailed post)
As I said, the ship has sailed IMHO and I'm actually with you on this one Erik.
there's just hardley anyone left, and the few that are left(us old guys) probably don't want to lose 10% in their few remaining years playing against younger players ;) ;D
There's just too few elite players(or fans) who care or even played spinnier, smaller equipment.
It's as I said earlier, it's as if hickory was proposed in 1975(when I took up the game)-nobody was left to remember or care about equipment from the 20's or 30's.
WTF TOOK SO LONG
Seriously, WTF took so long, and now I see they're talking about 2026.
a joke, miles behind the curve,as they have always been on the distance issue, denying it(especially when it exploded in 2001-2005) until it was FAR TOO LATE for any of us to care anymore.
They just called the fire truck to clean up the (cold) ashes.
-
If this is adopted I am going to be interested in the effect bifurcation has on recreational play. I suspect recreational golfers will be interested in trying the “elite” ball, at least as a one-off.
Also - Will State am events be considered elite?
I am pretty sure my net senior flight will not.
-
I am sure the guys that still play hickories will be interested in the new ball. I am guessing that only USGA events will use that ball and not state events.
-
The number of people on social media saying in lieu of ball rollback, we should just narrow fairways and grow higher rough is staggering. This whole thing has gone past ludicrous and into plaid. The governing bodies waited way way too long.
-
I would also like to see a modal rule limiting tee height to 1 inch - then they could not hit up on the ball and make most drivers obsolete.
-
The number of people on social media saying in lieu of ball rollback, we should just narrow fairways and grow higher rough is staggering. This whole thing has gone past ludicrous and into plaid. The governing bodies waited way way too long.
It's like they weren't paying attention for the last 25+ years when Tiger Proofing was the "solution". Equipment is a commodity that people change on a fairly regular basis and is a much more economical avenue for influence vs. changing the courses.
-
The number of people on social media saying in lieu of ball rollback, we should just narrow fairways and grow higher rough is staggering. This whole thing has gone past ludicrous and into plaid. The governing bodies waited way way too long.
It's like they weren't paying attention for the last 25+ years when Tiger Proofing was the "solution". Equipment is a commodity that people change on a fairly regular basis and is a much more economical avenue for influence vs. changing the courses.
Right.
And based on that notion here’s my prediction, bifurcation won’t last. I think that whatever the MLR ball is will become what people want to play.
-
Assuming this thing goes thru as planned...
The only mystery left is whether the PGA Tour is gonna grow a pair and implement their own set of rules to govern their league....like every other major sport does. Or at the very least decide they gonna follow the USGA rules only for the actual playing of the game, and reject the ones that govern equipment.
Even if it means the players have to figure out how to dial it in with different balls for the two opens and possibly the Masters...
-
And based on that notion here’s my prediction, bifurcation won’t last. I think that whatever the MLR ball is will become what people want to play.
Similar thoughts here with the 2026 start ‘helpfully’ there to permit an opportunity for stocks of current spec balls to be gradually sold off (and lost) and newer spec balls fazed-in.
There’s a business opportunity here too I suspect for another manufacturer to grab some of Titleists premium market share.
More to follow.
Atb
-
Well, this should be interesting.
First and foremost, rules are rules, so you’ll have to play by them.
But with the tours battling over LIV and control, this is an interesting time to announce this (though we kind of knew it would be coming).
For many of the top players, equipment contracts are now becoming a bit less % of players incomes with the crazy increases in purses. That may lessen some pushback from players.
I know some dont care, but equipment changes have derailed players quite often, and now, with the elevated events, and limited fields, forcing a change in the key piece of equipment, which likely will lead to changes in clubs to optimize everything is going to be huge impact. A career can go south in one season and maybe it’s just me, but that’s going to create an amount of pushback.
Manufacturers reaction should be interesting. Why invest in development of a ball that inherently goes shorter and performs worse for a very small portion of the golfing world. Potentially leading to redesign of drivers to better fit those balls? Obviously depends on where the line is drawn. Professionals/top ams/college/top juniors
A lot to chew on and watch for reactions.
-
Well, this should be interesting.
First and foremost, rules are rules, so you’ll have to play by them.
But with the tours battling over LIV and control, this is an interesting time to announce this (though we kind of knew it would be coming).
For many of the top players, equipment contracts are now becoming a bit less % of players incomes with the crazy increases in purses. That may lessen some pushback from players.
I know some dont care, but equipment changes have derailed players quite often, and now, with the elevated events, and limited fields, forcing a change in the key piece of equipment, which likely will lead to changes in clubs to optimize everything is going to be huge impact. A career can go south in one season and maybe it’s just me, but that’s going to create an amount of pushback.
Manufacturers reaction should be interesting. Why invest in development of a ball that inherently goes shorter and performs worse for a very small portion of the golfing world. Potentially leading to redesign of drivers to better fit those balls? Obviously depends on where the line is drawn. Professionals/top ams/college/top juniors
A lot to chew on and watch for reactions.
Pat-I thought the same thing for purposes of developing the ball to meet the new standards. The guys that they would be for don’t pay for them anyway. A lot of R&D cost for little to no return won’t be found in many businesses plans.
-
Golf's plan to roll back the ball and rein in big-hitters
”Telegraph Sport has learned that the impending announcement is believed to centre around “a discussion document” about reining back the ball and essentially introducing restrictions that will ultimately decrease the distance it will travel, even under optimal conditions.”
- …”after a six-month consulting period in which the manufacturers have voiced objections and shared ideas, Telegraph Sport has learned the R&A and USGA - despite limiting shafts to a maximum of 46ins last year - seems to be primarily focused on decreasing the ball and not drastically overhauling the rules on clubs, which could affect recreational golfers.”
- “We think we can make changes to the golf ball that can impact the longest hitters but have really minimal impact on the average drive distance for the recreational golfers,” Thomas Pagel, the USGA chief governance officer, said in 2022.
Read more:
https://sports.yahoo.com/r-want-limit-far-golf-172649305.html?src=rss (https://sports.yahoo.com/r-want-limit-far-golf-172649305.html?src=rss)
-
The number of people on social media saying in lieu of ball rollback, we should just narrow fairways and grow higher rough is staggering. This whole thing has gone past ludicrous and into plaid. The governing bodies waited way way too long.
It's like they weren't paying attention for the last 25+ years when Tiger Proofing was the "solution". Equipment is a commodity that people change on a fairly regular basis and is a much more economical avenue for influence vs. changing the courses.
Right.
And based on that notion here’s my prediction, bifurcation won’t last. I think that whatever the MLR ball is will become what people want to play.
I don’t think old guys and short hitters will macho up in droves to play the new ball if they can play a ball that goes father under the rules. Call me crazy. ;)
-
I don't believe its physics that holds back the driver. Regulations still limits its potential. Yet year after year the manufacturers spend millions chasing a few extra yards of distance and a few less yards in accuracy.
The same will be true with a ball change. Manufactures will look for any way possible to push and stretch the regulations in their favor. And then at the end of the day the marketing department will find some reason that the new ball will be better for the weekend warrior and sell it to them at a premium.
-
Titleist and Bridgestone, to name two, have predictably grumbled about today's announcement.
They need not. Their latest and greatest ball will continue to be bought and used by 99.9 percent of players. That 0.1 percent, high-level touring pros and amateur, will use a ball they often get for free, and presumably made with the same tender loving care the special edition balls they use now are made with. It'll just be from a 2007 or 2005 design, whatever they find will pass muster so it goes 15 yards less off the tee and players thus have one more club in.
At which point the manufacturers can advertise, "Play the ball the pros can't play." And also, "Play the ball they want only the pros to play." At a premium.
-
While the best (and least disruptive) technology solution appears to be taking weight out of the ball, I sure hope us recreational golfers can still play the 1.62oz ball..
I would hate to be floating my drive up the 15th fairway at NSW into the typical summer 25mph North East wind. it might just land back at my feet.
-
Watched a player top his tee shot 50 yds the other day.
Presumably if he happened to be using a ball bifurcated to todays proposed spec it would only have gone about 45 yds?
Later saw the same player trickle a 4 ft putt that only just toppled into the hole. Presumably using a bifurcated proposed pro spec ball the ball would still be sitting short on the lip.
Sic!
Atb
-
If this is adopted I am going to be interested in the effect bifurcation has on recreational play. I suspect recreational golfers will be interested in trying the “elite” ball, at least as a one-off.
Also - Will State am events be considered elite?
I am pretty sure my net senior flight will not.
This is the same playbook the R & A used when they phased out the 1.62-in ball between the late 70's and early 90's.
They made the bigger ball mandatory for the Amateur Championship. All those players switched. Then those players petitioned to make the small ball illegal for other amateur events. Over the years, eventually it worked its way back to club competitions, and after 10-15 years the small ball was a sign of weakness that nobody wanted to admit to.
[It helped that it was noticeably smaller.]
-
This is the same playbook the R & A used when they phased out the 1.62-in ball between the late 70's and early 90's.
They made the bigger ball mandatory for the Amateur Championship. All those players switched. Then those players petitioned to make the small ball illegal for other amateur events. Over the years, eventually it worked its way back to club competitions, and after 10-15 years the small ball was a sign of weakness that nobody wanted to admit to.
[It helped that it was noticeably smaller.]
The covert machinations of Lord Blackadder rather than a Baldrick like “cunning plan.”
Atb
-
https://www.golfdigest.com/story/usga-r-and-a-golf-ball-rollback-announcment-explained?utm_medium=email&utm_source=031423&utm_campaign=hitlist&utm_content=DM37515&uuid=9861c6da148243648f1aa92679fb32a0
-
Here's the best explanation I've heard regarding the reasons for the two large governinng bodies reigning in the golf ball vs. equipment and who will be impacted the most. It isn't the longest of the long ball hitters, but the average and lower club head speed players who stand to be most negatively affected.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmmXiaY3iAw&t=1950s (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmmXiaY3iAw&t=1950s)
Start at the 4:25 mark in the video and listen to the debate between Fairways of Life host, Matt Adams (Golf Channel journo) and his producer, Dominic.
There are only a handful of guys on the tour that swing the driver at 127 mph, which is the speed robotic testing will be peformed at going forward from the current speed of 120 mph. The average PGA Tour player driver club head speed is 115 mph and has been around this mark several years. This means there are a lot of players whose club head speed is in the mid 100's. In mathematical terms, the guys at the upper end of the club head speed spectrum will lose 5 - 9 yds. from their current driving distance average with the ball rollback, whereas players such as Joel Dhamen, Tom Hoge and Brendan Todd, who whose club head speed ranges from 105 - 110 mph stand to lose 30 - 40 yds. It makes absolutely no sense - especially if your average driving distance is 280 yds., as the distance gap between the fastest to the slower swingers is going to grow disproportionately larger.
I watched Cam Young play a different TPC Sawgrass course from Max Homa and Jordan Spieth Sat. morning with his drives flying beyond theirs in the air and finishing 30 - 40 yds. further. I was blown away. That gap is only going to get worse, not better, with the ball rollback.
None of the professional tours are going to go along with this. There are too many sponorship and ad dollars at stake. If the R&A and USGA are adamant in implementing the rolled back ball in their prized championships they risk a lot of the best professional players boycotting their tournaments out of protest.
-
Here's the best explanation I've heard regarding the reasons for the two large governinng bodies reigning in the golf ball vs. equipment and who will be impacted the most. It isn't the longest of the long ball hitters, but the average and lower club head speed players who stand to be most negatively affected.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmmXiaY3iAw&t=1950s (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmmXiaY3iAw&t=1950s)
Start at the 4:25 mark in the video and listen to the debate between Fairways of Life host, Matt Adams (Golf Channel journo) and his producer, Dominic.
There are only a handful of guys on the tour that swing the driver at 127 mph, which is the speed robotic testing will be peformed at going forward from the current speed of 120 mph. The average PGA Tour player driver club head speed is 115 mph and has been around this mark several years. This means there are a lot of players whose club head speed is in the mid 100's. In mathematical terms, the guys at the upper end of the club head speed spectrum will lose 5 - 9 yds. from their current driving distance average with the ball rollback, whereas players such as Joel Dhamen, Tom Hoge and Brendan Todd, who whose club head speed ranges from 105 - 110 mph stand to lose 30 - 40 yds. It makes absolutely no sense - especially if your average driving distance is 280 yds., as the distance gap between the fastest to the slower swingers is going to grow disproportionately larger.
I watched Cam Young play a different TPC Sawgrass course from Max Homa and Jordan Spieth Sat. morning with his drives flying beyond theirs in the air and finishing 30 - 40 yds. further. I was blown away. That gap is only going to get worse, not better, with the ball rollback.
None of the professional tours are going to go along with this. There are too many sponorship and ad dollars at stake. If the R&A and USGA are adamant in implementing the rolled back ball in their prized championships they risk a lot of the best professional players boycotting their tournaments out of protest.
So the longest hitters lose, say, 2% and the (relatively) shorter hitters lose 10%+?! i can’t see how that can be correct.
-
So the longest hitters lose, say, 2% and the (relatively) shorter hitters lose 10%+?! i can’t see how that can be correct.
It's not. I'm not sure what he's talking about.
-
So the longest hitters lose, say, 2% and the (relatively) shorter hitters lose 10%+?! i can’t see how that can be correct.
According to the physics and math, that was Matt Adams take on it. It sounds plausible if the math is correct. I've yet to see anyone disprove this.
-
So the longest hitters lose, say, 2% and the (relatively) shorter hitters lose 10%+?! i can’t see how that can be correct.
According to the physics and math, that was Matt Adams take on it. It sounds plausible if the math is correct. I've yet to see anyone disprove this.
That’s a big “if”. I’m pretty sure the math(s) isn’t correct.
-
If the R&A and USGA are adamant in implementing the rolled back ball in their prized championships they risk a lot of the best professional players boycotting their tournaments out of protest.
I don’t think even one player will boycott a U.S. or British Open for the reason stated above.
-
That’s a big “if”. I’m pretty sure the math(s) isn’t correct.
Interesting that no one, including the two major governing bodies, has provided empirical statistical evidence to support justification of the ball rollback and who the most and least affected will be. That would have been the easiest thing to do given how long they've been studying this and possibly would have quashed much of the dissent.
-
I don’t think even one player will boycott a U.S. or British Open for the reason stated above.
I never thought LIV would become a reality after Mickelson made a public ass out of himself in Feb. 2022., but what do I know?
-
I don’t think even one player will boycott a U.S. or British Open for the reason stated above.
I never thought LIV would become a reality after Mickelson made a public ass out of himself in Feb. 2022., but what do I know?
Mike-Players will adapt to win a major IMO.
-
Mike-Players will adapt to win a major IMO.
I'd like to think so, but Tour players can be a fickle lot at times. If you force them to play a ball they don't practice with two tournaments a year some may take umbrage with it. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe all eligible PGA Tour players take part in the Open Championship each year. They may have last year for the 150th, but I don't believe it's always the case. The same may be true for the U.S. Open as far as foreigners eligible to play that aren't interested in making the trip.
-
So the longest hitters lose, say, 2% and the (relatively) shorter hitters lose 10%+?! i can’t see how that can be correct.
It's not. I'm not sure what he's talking about.
Matt says, "By my calculations." and "...based on physics."
Whatinhell is he talking about? How is it even possible to make a "calculation" that has any validity with so little data to input to the calculations.
-
According to the physics and math, that was Matt Adams take on it. It sounds plausible if the math is correct. I've yet to see anyone disprove this.
Matt is wrong. And 4:25 in the video is still the USGA duo talking, so… I'm not sure what you're talking about. Can you provide an accurate timestamp?
-
4:25 in the video is still the USGA duo talking, so… I'm not sure what you're talking about. Can you provide an accurate timestamp?
Sorry, Erik. Try 4:52. My dyslexia was as work originally. ;)
-
Sorry, Erik. Try 4:52. My dyslexia was as work originally. ;)
So it's actually around 8:45.
I don't know what Matt was doing. I don't think he understood it. He was saying that you'd lose 16.1 yards because you'd be going from 127 to 120 yards, and 7 * 2.3 = 16.1 yards.
Then, and I'm guessing a bit here because his logic is as illogical as it gets, he's saying that because 115 MPH is 12 MPH less than 127… that they'll lose 12 * 2.3 = 27.6 yards.
(https://p197.p4.n0.cdn.getcloudapp.com/items/E0uXb7Zw/e9e7035c-fa56-4256-ab75-dc01c858c77f.jpg?v=2f7522e37a01d9959213b016dd1af0f8)
That's some BAD math there.
-
Sorry, Erik. Try 4:52. My dyslexia was as work originally. ;)
So it's actually around 8:45.
I don't know what Matt was doing. I don't think he understood it. He was saying that you'd lose 16.1 yards because you'd be going from 127 to 120 yards, and 7 * 2.3 = 16.1 yards.
Then, and I'm guessing a bit here because his logic is as illogical as it gets, he's saying that because 115 MPH is 12 MPH less than 127… that they'll lose 12 * 2.3 = 27.6 yards.
(https://p197.p4.n0.cdn.getcloudapp.com/items/E0uXb7Zw/e9e7035c-fa56-4256-ab75-dc01c858c77f.jpg?v=2f7522e37a01d9959213b016dd1af0f8)
That's some BAD math there.
I'll be curious to see if he corrects himself tomorrow or the days to come or if there are those who concurr with his analysis.
-
I'll be curious to see if he corrects himself tomorrow or the days to come or if there are those who concurr with his analysis.
That'd be like "concurring" that 2 + 2 = a red panda, the math is so bad.
I genuinely don't even understand what he's talking about. He doesn't seem to understand this proposed change at all.
-
Here's the best explanation I've heard regarding the reasons for the two large governinng bodies reigning in the golf ball vs. equipment and who will be impacted the most. It isn't the longest of the long ball hitters, but the average and lower club head speed players who stand to be most negatively affected.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmmXiaY3iAw&t=1950s (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmmXiaY3iAw&t=1950s)
Start at the 4:25 mark in the video and listen to the debate between Fairways of Life host, Matt Adams (Golf Channel journo) and his producer, Dominic.
There are only a handful of guys on the tour that swing the driver at 127 mph, which is the speed robotic testing will be peformed at going forward from the current speed of 120 mph. The average PGA Tour player driver club head speed is 115 mph and has been around this mark several years. This means there are a lot of players whose club head speed is in the mid 100's. In mathematical terms, the guys at the upper end of the club head speed spectrum will lose 5 - 9 yds. from their current driving distance average with the ball rollback, whereas players such as Joel Dhamen, Tom Hoge and Brendan Todd, who whose club head speed ranges from 105 - 110 mph stand to lose 30 - 40 yds. It makes absolutely no sense - especially if your average driving distance is 280 yds., as the distance gap between the fastest to the slower swingers is going to grow disproportionately larger.
I watched Cam Young play a different TPC Sawgrass course from Max Homa and Jordan Spieth Sat. morning with his drives flying beyond theirs in the air and finishing 30 - 40 yds. further. I was blown away. That gap is only going to get worse, not better, with the ball rollback.
None of the professional tours are going to go along with this. There are too many sponorship and ad dollars at stake. If the R&A and USGA are adamant in implementing the rolled back ball in their prized championships they risk a lot of the best professional players boycotting their tournaments out of protest.
They have been talking about this with the manufacturers for two or three years, and I think what's been announced is the compromise where they can appear to be "doing something" that the manufacturers will agree to because it won't change the status quo too much.
That's how big business works nowadays, you know? It's all about politics and protecting your nest egg.
Maybe your data is right and the manufacturers are going along because they believe the general public won't switch balls. Or maybe your data is wrong, but they're going along because they can stop paying pros so much to "represent" them. Who knows?
The one thing I am certain of is that it won't change the game back to how it used to be. That would have changed the status quo too much.
-
They have been talking about this with the manufacturers for two or three years, and I think what's been announced is the compromise where they can appear to be "doing something" that the manufacturers will agree to because it won't change the status quo too much.
That's how big business works nowadays, you know? It's all about politics and protecting your nest egg.
Maybe your data is right and the manufacturers are going along because they believe the general public won't switch balls. Or maybe your data is wrong, but they're going along because they can stop paying pros so much to "represent" them. Who knows?
The one thing I am certain of is that it won't change the game back to how it used to be. That would have changed the status quo too much.
I agree with pretty much everything written above. Interestingly, there's been little said from any tour players regarding this. Makes me wonder if their ball sponsors gave them marching orders not to say a damn thing until the time is right? Certainly, the question will come up at player press confernces on both the PGA and LIV tours. It'll be interesting to see the talking points they're given from their sponsors, as I suspect you'll hear a lot of the same answers.
-
The number of people on social media saying in lieu of ball rollback, we should just narrow fairways and grow higher rough is staggering. This whole thing has gone past ludicrous and into plaid. The governing bodies waited way way too long.
It's like they weren't paying attention for the last 25+ years when Tiger Proofing was the "solution". Equipment is a commodity that people change on a fairly regular basis and is a much more economical avenue for influence vs. changing the courses.
Right.
And based on that notion here’s my prediction, bifurcation won’t last. I think that whatever the MLR ball is will become what people want to play.
I agree. Eventually everyone will shift to the same equipment. I just hope this is phase one of the rollback. Jeff is right, this will only halt even more distance. A 17ish% reduction is what will really attack the problem.
Ciao
-
If the R&A and USGA are adamant in implementing the rolled back ball in their prized championships they risk a lot of the best professional players boycotting their tournaments out of protest.
I don’t think even one player will boycott a U.S. or British Open for the reason stated above.
I agree.
Ciao
-
So the longest hitters lose, say, 2% and the (relatively) shorter hitters lose 10%+?! i can’t see how that can be correct.
It's not. I'm not sure what he's talking about.
No it's not, is it. In fact, it's what I think we in the UK call "utter bollocks".
-
If the R&A and USGA are adamant in implementing the rolled back ball in their prized championships they risk a lot of the best professional players boycotting their tournaments out of protest.
I don’t think even one player will boycott a U.S. or British Open for the reason stated above.
I agree.
Ciao
If any do, that is fine, there are plenty more good players out there who will be happy to play.
Let’s not forget Augusta who probably will go along with it.
-
Table Tennis has changed the ball twice in the past 25 years. (There are 5 times more table tennis players worldwide than golfers). First in 2000 the ball went from 38mm to 40mm. This was done to ‘slow down’ the ball and make for longer rallies. At the elite level, the game had been dominated by the serve and return, making for boring/short matches. Then the construction (material of the ball) changed from celluloid to a poly plastic ball in 2014. This was proposed because celluloid has toxic properties but secondarily the new poly ball is a bit slower. The ‘debate’ about the proposed changes were highly charged, but today Table Tennis has benefited from these changes at both the elite level and the recreational level.
For those not familiar, Table Tennis equipment is highly expansive. A single manufacture/brand offers 5 or 6 dozen blades (the wooden part) and nearly a hundred different rubbers. The manufactures were the most vocal about the changes because they had to reformulate/engineer their equipment offerings. But after the ITTF made the rule changes, the manufactures profited greatly. Thus, I don’t understand why golf equipment brands are so reluctant to change; imagine the advertisements “Big Betsie, Designed to maximize the ‘New Ball.’”
From an Architectural viewpoint, I don’t know why anyone would boo-hoo bifurcation. I found myself playing a couple of rounds this month at Hot Spring Village, Arkansas. I played with a couple that registered 300+ rounds last year. They didn’t bother to play 2 holes on their ‘home’ course because they couldn’t reach the fairway, nor the green from the end of the fairway. Golf Architecture had failed them. The designers (Ault, Clark, and Associates) were more concern with other things than the enjoyment of their clients. (I asked the pro how many rounds played from the tips 7100 yards, he laughed and said less than one percent play from the 6200 yard tees) Would having an elite ball prevent this kind of malpractice? Probably not, but I do believe it could continue to dissuade penal architecture and 7500 yard courses… which I would consider both positives.
-
The long awaited roll back has arrived and no one here seems happy?
-
I agree with you that it's too late to roll the driver back to something completely different. The elite players won't accept a rule that renders some of them non-elite. Half the younger guys would be unable to compete if the equipment changed that much.
This is why I've warmed to the fringe proposal that calls for the removal of the actual golf tees. It will never happen, but I like the simplicity of the solution and the self limiting nature of it. Say that on each tee, you drop the ball from knee height and then play it as it lies until you reach the green (i.e. you can't manipulate the ground to create a grass ramp).
Downsides are that 2nd tier courses and below would have really rough teeing grounds. A local rule could allow for the placing of the golf ball without manipulating the ground.
Driver tech would no doubt evolve to have lower CoG and 2 woods would probably make a comeback. But trying to destroy a ball that is on the ground brings a lot of risk back to the tee shot. The breaking point for me was when I heard the quote from a tour player that they were so nervous on the first tee of the Ryder Cup that they pulled out the driver since it was the easiest club to hit.
My personal preference would be for a full rollback to something like 1982 tech, but that would be very alienating for modern players. With the no-tee rule, it wouldn't be picking on anyone. They could use their same equipment and golf balls. And every good modern player who can hit a driver well can also hit 3Ws well.
-
Pros have already started to jump in. Nothing new thou...
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/it-s-so-bad-for-the-game-justin-thomas-doesn-t-hold-back-when-it-comes-to-new-golf-ball-rollback-proposal-that-would-limit-distance/ar-AA18Foew?ocid=hpmsn&cvid=959977aebd4748bcac828135068be5fe&ei=10
-
Thus, I don’t understand why golf equipment brands are so reluctant to change; imagine the advertisements “Big Betsie, Designed to maximize the ‘New Ball.’”
I don't honestly believe they are reluctant to change. However, if they come out and say "This is great, those huge advances in distance we keep on advertising have been bad for the game and need rolling back" it would look odd. So they'll argue that they're defending the benefits they've brought to the recreational game, whilst their R&D teams start work on the developments that their marketing teams will promote in just the same way as they always have "best wiffle ball for the pro AND the amateur, brought to you with Supersonic technology". Titleist, perhaps, will be slightly miffed that the Pro V1 will lose its supremacy, but I'm sure their Wiffle V1 will prove just as dominant.
-
Bringing this back to the golf course architecture focus of this site, I saw the mention this morning that--if the PGA Tour rejects the new USGA model local rule--the problem of the length of the ball and the obsoleting of golf courses, may fall on golf course architects to solve. Any speculation of what kind of things will need to be done? I know the obvious minor tweaks--length of rough, firmness of greens, etc.--but are there any mega-trends or major solutions that you see?
-
Bringing this back to the golf course architecture focus of this site, I saw the mention this morning that--if the PGA Tour rejects the new USGA model local rule--the problem of the length of the ball and the obsoleting of golf courses, may fall on golf course architects to solve. Any speculation of what kind of things will need to be done? I know the obvious minor tweaks--length of rough, firmness of greens, etc.--but are there any mega-trends or major solutions that you see?
I think trying to somehow combat distance through architectural or maintenance means would not be a good thing. It would be like having doctors develop weapons. Most of them wouldn't be interested, and the few who went along would develop truly horrific things.
-
Bringing this back to the golf course architecture focus of this site, I saw the mention this morning that--if the PGA Tour rejects the new USGA model local rule--the problem of the length of the ball and the obsoleting of golf courses, may fall on golf course architects to solve. Any speculation of what kind of things will need to be done? I know the obvious minor tweaks--length of rough, firmness of greens, etc.--but are there any mega-trends or major solutions that you see?
For a course who's main purpose is to host professional golf, end every fairway at 300 yards. Between 300-375 yards build a great hazard that players would not want to play out of. Force every player to lay back to less than 300 yards off the tee, thus removing driving skill from the game and focus play strictly on approach quality.
-
Still seems like a have your cake and eat it too solution.
Arguments for roll back have largely been golf course protections as well as challenging the high level players and counterpoints also brought up the distance missed shots are going by the avg golfer creating safety issues both in and off the course.
Some random line in the sand for a level that should play a short ball creates confusion as well as division in a game that has some momentum with people joining the game.
I e always been against bifurcation in the argument.
And still believe there should either be a rollback across the board or not
-
For a course who's main purpose is to host professional golf, end every fairway at 300 yards. Between 300-375 yards build a great hazard that players would not want to play out of. Force every player to lay back to less than 300 yards off the tee, thus removing driving skill from the game and focus play strictly on approach quality.
This is one of those truly horrific options I was thinking of (not you Ben, as I assume you aren't advocating this type of course). But yes, this is the type of thing we could probably expect if the architects were somehow put in charge of stopping distance.
-
Tongue firmly planted in cheek on that one. But from a forecasting perspective, putting that argument out there as a potential future does help to put things in context.
It was interesting to listen to Mike Whan on the No Laying Up podcast (https://nolayingup.com/podcasts/no-laying-up-podcast/nlu-podcast-episode-655-mike-whan-on-the-usga-s-proposed-distance-changes) today talking about how the USGA is looking towards the next 40 years and what may happen if some controls are not put into place today. It leads credence to the weight of the problem is not big enough currently, but the proposed change is focused on if and when things continue to progress.
Sad that they didn't have that foresight 20 years back.
-
For a course who's main purpose is to host professional golf, end every fairway at 300 yards. Between 300-375 yards build a great hazard that players would not want to play out of. Force every player to lay back to less than 300 yards off the tee, thus removing driving skill from the game and focus play strictly on approach quality.
This is one of those truly horrific options I was thinking of (not you Ben, as I assume you aren't advocating this type of course). But yes, this is the type of thing we could probably expect if the architects were somehow put in charge of stopping distance.
I remember the the first time I played the Mountain Course at La Quinta. It late 1980’s and I loved playing it because of the setting.
But even being an average to slightly above average distance guy, there were a number of holes that I didn’t hit driver due to fairways ending. I wasn’t a fan of it, probably because I usually drove it well, but Ive played courses that did just this type of thing on some holes
-
For a course who's main purpose is to host professional golf, end every fairway at 300 yards. Between 300-375 yards build a great hazard that players would not want to play out of. Force every player to lay back to less than 300 yards off the tee, thus removing driving skill from the game and focus play strictly on approach quality.
This is one of those truly horrific options I was thinking of (not you Ben, as I assume you aren't advocating this type of course). But yes, this is the type of thing we could probably expect if the architects were somehow put in charge of stopping distance.
I remember the the first time I played the Mountain Course at La Quinta. It late 1980’s and I loved playing it because of the setting.
But even being an average to slightly above average distance guy, there were a number of holes that I didn’t hit driver due to fairways ending. I wasn’t a fan of it, probably because I usually drove it well, but Ive played courses that did just this type of thing on some holes
It's perfectly fine to do occasionally, but if architects had to fight the distance fight on their own, we'd have a lot more of this type of shenanigans.
-
For a course who's main purpose is to host professional golf, end every fairway at 300 yards. Between 300-375 yards build a great hazard that players would not want to play out of. Force every player to lay back to less than 300 yards off the tee, thus removing driving skill from the game and focus play strictly on approach quality.
This is one of those truly horrific options I was thinking of (not you Ben, as I assume you aren't advocating this type of course). But yes, this is the type of thing we could probably expect if the architects were somehow put in charge of stopping distance.
I remember the the first time I played the Mountain Course at La Quinta. It late 1980’s and I loved playing it because of the setting.
But even being an average to slightly above average distance guy, there were a number of holes that I didn’t hit driver due to fairways ending. I wasn’t a fan of it, probably because I usually drove it well, but Ive played courses that did just this type of thing on some holes
It's perfectly fine to do occasionally, but if architects had to fight the distance fight on their own, we'd have a lot more of this type of shenanigans.
Understood. I still wish great golf courses just said NO to the craziness of change for a small percentage of players. Let the tournament golfers play Torrey and chambers. Stop ruining places
Or
Roll everything back if it’s really more than a small percentage
-
Tongue firmly planted in cheek on that one. But from a forecasting perspective, putting that argument out there as a potential future does help to put things in context.
It was interesting to listen to Mike Whan on the No Laying Up podcast (https://nolayingup.com/podcasts/no-laying-up-podcast/nlu-podcast-episode-655-mike-whan-on-the-usga-s-proposed-distance-changes) today talking about how the USGA is looking towards the next 40 years and what may happen if some controls are not put into place today. It leads credence to the weight of the problem is not big enough currently, but the proposed change is focused on if and when things continue to progress.
Sad that they didn't have that foresight 20 years back.
Not just no foresight, but downright denial.
For years they stated the annual distance gains were "statistically insignificant".
Now, they're asking an entire generation to learn a new game, one many/most NEVER played.
The ship sailed,they flat out missed it and the funny thing is they still have punted it out to 2026-lol.
25 years after the dramatic ProV 1 distance explosion(and well after the extra light/long titanium waffle race had begun 8 years before that)
For (20 plus)years I was a huge proponent of a rollback-now I've accepted it and simply think 'better late than never" no longer applies here.
While they were busy for years fighting innovations of technique(anchoring), and a nonsensical battle over grooves(under the laughable guise of combatting bomb and gauge), neither of which changed anything(besides ruining a few short games for those of us who had to park our Eye-2s for certain events as the manufacturers quickly adjusted to recapture all lost spin).....
AN ENTIRE GENERATION of players and industry was adapting, adjusting and learning to play with new hot equipment, which has had huge negative implications in design, cost, strategy, competition,pace of play, safety, real estate etc.
So they just roll all that back now that they got their head out of their collective arses?
Reminds me of the scene in the Three Amigos where they keep adjusting "Theese is the line of death".......errr "theese is the line of death"...
-
The long awaited roll back has arrived and no one here seems happy?
Could it be that a 4% rollback (and bifurcated at that, though I think the manufacturers might actually push for a full rollback) is not seen as enough?
I don't think it is. I still don't entirely think a rollback is necessary (still largely because I don't think golf should really be governed based on what a tiny percentage of the game's best do), but if they were going to rollback, then freaking roll back like 10% or something. 320 to 290 is something. 320 to 306? Why bother? Why cause such a disruption for just that little of a change?
-
It was interesting to listen to Mike Whan on the No Laying Up podcast (https://nolayingup.com/podcasts/no-laying-up-podcast/nlu-podcast-episode-655-mike-whan-on-the-usga-s-proposed-distance-changes) today talking about how the USGA is looking towards the next 40 years and what may happen if some controls are not put into place today. It leads credence to the weight of the problem is not big enough currently, but the proposed change is focused on if and when things continue to progress.
There hasn't been a lot of talk about what position Augusta National has taken on this proposed ball roll back, although I'm sure they were consulted. I imagine Fred Ridley is probably holding his fire until the Tuesday of Masters week.
Having done work for both the USGA and ANGC at IBM, the people who ran things at ANGC were a lot more accepting of innovative ideas and - if interested in something - wanted to know how exactly how and when it could be executed. I eventually asked off the USGA business because some of the long-timers on the account wouldn't even present ideas to the various competition committees as they seemed to know exactly who would kill them, often for no good reason at all.
To a large degree that mindset explains 25 years of inaction from the USGA despite pleas from some of the sport's most influential figures. And now this idea, which seems like a last gasp and not thought out at all in terms of how it will impact the various levels of competition.
The sport of tennis allowed so many advances in equipment that it has completely changed the sport at the elite level over the last 40 years. Go onto You Tube and watch a McEnroe/Borg match from the early 80s and it's barely same game played by the likes of Nadal and Alcaraz. The last element of artistry in the sport retired along with Roger Federer last year.
But much like golf's current distance conundrum with the top .01%, the toothpaste will not go back in the tube.
-
The long awaited roll back has arrived and no one here seems happy?
Could it be that a 4% rollback (and bifurcated at that, though I think the manufacturers might actually push for a full rollback) is not seen as enough?
I don't think it is. I still don't entirely think a rollback is necessary (still largely because I don't think golf should really be governed based on what a tiny percentage of the game's best do), but if they were going to rollback, then freaking roll back like 10% or something. 320 to 290 is something. 320 to 306? Why bother? Why cause such a disruption for just that little of a change?
Ok, the real issue I am bummed about is bifurcation. So, how will handicaps work? I can’t imagine that there is not gonna be significant pressure to play the “real” ball that pros play in regular play.
-
I expect local rules and clubs can handle that.
We can have a "rota" type system of ~40 courses for majors and designated events on TV. I don't particularly like it but it seems plausible. There will be plenty of people wanting to play those places for the name. I see the major issue/gray area in the state opens and major Am events. Speaking selfishly, I don't have the practice time to get ready to play a different ball in my state open.
-
The long awaited roll back has arrived and no one here seems happy?
Could it be that a 4% rollback (and bifurcated at that, though I think the manufacturers might actually push for a full rollback) is not seen as enough?
I don't think it is. I still don't entirely think a rollback is necessary (still largely because I don't think golf should really be governed based on what a tiny percentage of the game's best do), but if they were going to rollback, then freaking roll back like 10% or something. 320 to 290 is something. 320 to 306? Why bother? Why cause such a disruption for just that little of a change?
Bingo.
Because they don't care to actually do anything, but rather to be seen as doing something.
By the time all of this is implemented, we'll all have been "rolled back" ourselves, then eventually I guess we can roll over in our final resting places as we continue to watch the ineptness unfold.
-
Tongue firmly planted in cheek on that one. But from a forecasting perspective, putting that argument out there as a potential future does help to put things in context.
It was interesting to listen to Mike Whan on the No Laying Up podcast (https://nolayingup.com/podcasts/no-laying-up-podcast/nlu-podcast-episode-655-mike-whan-on-the-usga-s-proposed-distance-changes) today talking about how the USGA is looking towards the next 40 years and what may happen if some controls are not put into place today. It leads credence to the weight of the problem is not big enough currently, but the proposed change is focused on if and when things continue to progress.
Sad that they didn't have that foresight 20 years back.
Not just no foresight, but downright denial.
For years they stated the annual distance gains were "statistically insignificant".
Now, they're asking an entire generation to learn a new game, one many/most NEVER played.
The ship sailed,they flat out missed it and the funny thing is they still have punted it out to 2026-lol.
25 years after the dramatic ProV 1 distance explosion(and well after the extra light/long titanium waffle race had begun 8 years before that)
For (20 plus)years I was a huge proponent of a rollback-now I've accepted it and simply think 'better late than never" no longer applies here.
While they were busy for years fighting innovations of technique(anchoring), and a nonsensical battle over grooves(under the laughable guise of combatting bomb and gauge), neither of which changed anything(besides ruining a few short games for those of us who had to park our Eye-2s for certain events as the manufacturers quickly adjusted to recapture all lost spin).....
AN ENTIRE GENERATION of players and industry was adapting, adjusting and learning to play with new hot equipment, which has had huge negative implications in design, cost, strategy, competition,pace of play, safety, real estate etc.
So they just roll all that back now that they got their head out of their collective arses?
Reminds me of the scene in the Three Amigos where they keep adjusting "Theese is the line of death".......errr "theese is the line of death"...
I don't believe it's that big a deal. Pro golfers can adjust without much grief. To me this announcement is blown way out of proportion. Pros will hit it a bit shorter. We can choose which ball to use. It's not a big deal.
Ciao
-
This will make zero difference to me. I don't swing anywhere near 120...I'll still be hitting 220-240yds.
-
Ok, a coupe questions:
1. Are we correct in assuming that the PGA Tour will choose to adopt this local rule? I don’t know the extent to which the players themselves actually run the Tour, but is it possible that the players would prevent this, for better or worse?
2. IF the Tour does NOT adopt the local rule in 2026 and beyond, would happen then?
Just curious.
-
We know the US Open and Open Championship will adopt it. It sounds like Augusta is on board with the new ball for the Masters. No word from the PGA of America.
If the PGA tour does not officially adopt it, I do wonder if many of the players may push for the adoption, so they're not having to go back and forth on changing balls during the year. It could be a line in the sand where we find out how much / little the pros really care about the majors.
The PGA Tour has had the ability to set their own rules for 60 years and have always just differed to the USGA, I would not expect this is the hill they would chose to die on unless persuaded by Titleist, Callaway, Taylormade, Srixon, and Bridgestone.
Even then, while publicly the ball manufactures are upset, behind closed doors I doubt that is true. Based on the proposed ALC, it would seem that the new ball will end up being a lower compression version of their tour balls anyway. Which most of them already have. (i.e. Pro V1 to AVX or Tour Speed, TP5 to Tour Response, Z-Star to Q-Star Tour, X & XS to RX & RXS)
-
The long awaited roll back has arrived and no one here seems happy?
Could it be that a 4% rollback (and bifurcated at that, though I think the manufacturers might actually push for a full rollback) is not seen as enough?
I don't think it is. I still don't entirely think a rollback is necessary (still largely because I don't think golf should really be governed based on what a tiny percentage of the game's best do), but if they were going to rollback, then freaking roll back like 10% or something. 320 to 290 is something. 320 to 306? Why bother? Why cause such a disruption for just that little of a change?
Ok, the real issue I am bummed about is bifurcation. So, how will handicaps work? I can’t imagine that there is not gonna be significant pressure to play the “real” ball that pros play in regular play.
I could be wrong, but I don't think this is an issue. You can keep your handicap with the old ball. I'll keep my handicap with the new ball. When we play our match, the handicaps should properly adjust for our respective skills as long as we are playing the same ball as we use for keeping our handicap. I doubt a lot of players will be hopping back and forth between balls, so the system should still work.
-
I doubt a lot of players will be hopping back and forth between balls, so the system should still work.
The one group I can see doing this is players whose normal game is either on Tour or in elite amateur events where they are required to use the new ball. Some of them also play in scratch games for $$ with their friends back home where the new ball is not required.
However, based on looking at GHIN, I think a heck of a lot of them are now carrying handicaps and those games are no longer at scratch. For instance, a while back I heard Colt Knost say on PGA Tour Radio that he was getting two a side from Max Homa in the games at Whisper Rock.Colt's index is currently +3.0 and Homa's is +9.0, so I'm guessing he's getting three a side these days.
FWIW, if we both played the white tees at my home course, I'd be getting 32 strokes, and I don't think it would be enough.
-
The pros will bitch and moan but any sport using hundreds of acres where each full shot now goes 40 yards further than it did 40 years ago is not self-sustaining.
-
Terrific article by Michael Bamberger boils it down to The Essentials.
https://www.golfdigest.com/story/rolling-back-the-ball-sensible-solution-long-term-health-of-golf?utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook&utm_campaign=golfdigest&fbclid=IwAR0Fr5AxYNNI2etasbQ2T2hbiIonuN9cGZ63HoQfw-e4RNW2KAcp6va3Gvc (https://www.golfdigest.com/story/rolling-back-the-ball-sensible-solution-long-term-health-of-golf?utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook&utm_campaign=golfdigest&fbclid=IwAR0Fr5AxYNNI2etasbQ2T2hbiIonuN9cGZ63HoQfw-e4RNW2KAcp6va3Gvc)
-
Tongue firmly planted in cheek on that one. But from a forecasting perspective, putting that argument out there as a potential future does help to put things in context.
It was interesting to listen to Mike Whan on the No Laying Up podcast (https://nolayingup.com/podcasts/no-laying-up-podcast/nlu-podcast-episode-655-mike-whan-on-the-usga-s-proposed-distance-changes) today talking about how the USGA is looking towards the next 40 years and what may happen if some controls are not put into place today. It leads credence to the weight of the problem is not big enough currently, but the proposed change is focused on if and when things continue to progress.
Sad that they didn't have that foresight 20 years back.
Not just no foresight, but downright denial.
For years they stated the annual distance gains were "statistically insignificant".
Now, they're asking an entire generation to learn a new game, one many/most NEVER played.
The ship sailed, they flat out missed it and the funny thing is they still have punted it out to 2026-lol.
25 years after the dramatic ProV 1 distance explosion(and well after the extra light/long titanium waffle race had begun 8 years before that)
For (20 plus)years I was a huge proponent of a rollback-now I've accepted it and simply think 'better late than never" no longer applies here.
While they were busy for years fighting innovations of technique(anchoring), and a nonsensical battle over grooves(under the laughable guise of combatting bomb and gauge), neither of which changed anything(besides ruining a few short games for those of us who had to park our Eye-2s for certain events as the manufacturers quickly adjusted to recapture all lost spin).....
AN ENTIRE GENERATION of players and industry was adapting, adjusting and learning to play with new hot equipment, which has had huge negative implications in design, cost, strategy, competition, pace of play, safety, real estate etc.
So they just roll all that back now that they got their head out of their collective arses?
Reminds me of the scene in the Three Amigos where they keep adjusting "Theese is the line of death".......errr "theese is the line of death"...
I agree with this almost completely. If I could add one thing to it, I think part of the reason the USGA dropped the ball in nipping this in the bud 25 years ago is due to the scar tissue they had from the litigation with Karsten Solheim.
While I think this solution is better than nothing, it feels flaccid and more of an attempt to look like they're fixing everything they failed to do for so long. They let Pandora's Box be opened and you can't stuff it all back in. As you said, "the ship sailed". My only hope is that this potential "rollback" is at the very least successful at capping distance innovation long term so that it doesn't get more ridiculous than it already is.
-
They could have brought back the 1.62 British ball, and kept the current balls for elite competition (I still have an un-hit box of Penfolds).
-
Justin Thomas isn't happy.........
https://golf.com/gear/golf-balls/justin-thomas-sounds-off-on-proposed-ball-rollback/
-
I expect local rules and clubs can handle that.
We can have a "rota" type system of ~40 courses for majors and designated events on TV. I don't particularly like it but it seems plausible. There will be plenty of people wanting to play those places for the name. I see the major issue/gray area in the state opens and major Am events. Speaking selfishly, I don't have the practice time to get ready to play a different ball in my state open.
Why do you have to practice with a different ball? Nicklaus was able to go over to the UK and play with a ball that he never used, and beat all the best golfers in the world. Same with Arnie, Trevino, etc.
-
Justin Thomas isn't happy.........
https://golf.com/gear/golf-balls/justin-thomas-sounds-off-on-proposed-ball-rollback/ (https://golf.com/gear/golf-balls/justin-thomas-sounds-off-on-proposed-ball-rollback/)
Justin's mile analogy is exactly what has been happening over the last few decades. Golf has already stretched the courses out as far as it can to preserve scoring. What the USGA is trying to do, using his analogy, is to make the running shoes heavier.
-
Spot on Ben H. and Wayne.
I get that the USGA and R&A missed the boat for a generation and I'd like to see action sooner than 2026 but it has to stop somewhere, even if it means putting the car in reverse.
-
Why do you have to practice with a different ball? Nicklaus was able to go over to the UK and play with a ball that he never used, and beat all the best golfers in the world. Same with Arnie, Trevino, etc.
Golfers are, overall, much better now than then. So are the tolerances in manufacturing, etc.
-
While in a vacuum I would prefer a more aggressive rollback, this seems like a sensible approach to me. It is not going to make a huge difference but should at least hold the line for the next 15-20 years.
The rollback only works if the relevant stakeholders choose to comply. The more aggressive the action by the ruling bodies, the more risk there is that a tour or a championship will choose not to comply.
I somewhat hope LIV chooses not to adopt the local rule. I doubt the fact the players hit the ball a few extra yards on that tour will in any way improve their product.
-
I somewhat hope LIV chooses not to adopt the local rule. I doubt the fact the players hit the ball a few extra yards on that tour will in any way improve their product.
Agreed.
That tour seems headed for an inevitable WWE-like clownshow, no offense to wrestling fans intended.
-
The pros will bitch and moan but any sport using hundreds of acres where each full shot now goes 40 yards further than it did 40 years ago is not self-sustaining.
I go along with this.
Whilst I’d prefer a ball rollback more in the 15-20% range, and for all too, what’s been put on the table so far is better than no rollback at all.
It has also raised the profile of the issue outwith the usual golf community however, which is worth bearing in mind in relation to Mikes point above.
Best golf changes it’s playing criteria itself rather than have a bunch of no-knowledge, self promoting outside agencies, vested interests, politicians, the media etc interfere and really screw the game up.
Atb
-
Justin Thomas isn't happy.........
https://golf.com/gear/golf-balls/justin-thomas-sounds-off-on-proposed-ball-rollback/
If he is unhappy, then perhaps a new ball will expose weaknesses in his game. I see he ranks 76th in ball striking, But, his world ranking is 10. It would seem a real reason for him being unhappy is that he will be going down. Whereas, Scottie will solidify his position, and Colin will leave Justin in the distance.
-
From Golf Digest interview with USGA technical chief a brief explanation of the "rollback" amount:
Can you explain where the 14-15 yards figure is from? We've seen some simulations that show more like 20-25 yards.
SPITZER: Going from 120 to 127 [the proposed new swing speed for the golf ball test for elite competitions] is a little more than a 5.8 percent increase. 20-25 yards would be more like 6.3-7.9 percent, which doesn’t agree with our research. For players with swing speeds that are near or above where we currently test, we estimate the effect to be 18 yards (which is about the same 5.8 percent). Remember, that you need to consider that golf balls have diminishing returns the harder that they are struck because the coefficient of restitution decreases at higher speeds [Note: Coefficient of Restitution or COR usually refers to the springiness of driver faces, but it also applies to the resilience of golf balls. A super ball has a high COR, a Nerf ball has a low COR.] Players closer to the average swing speed (approximately 115 miles per hour) lose slightly less; 14-15 yards.
This is pretty rudimentary arithmetic. We won't really know how the MLR impacts different swing speeds until some prototype balls are developed and tested and that comply with the new ODS testing protocol and standard.
The USGA has an algorithm that estimates distance based on measurements gathered in their ITR to determine if balls comply with the ODS. Flightscope has a similar algorithm that produces the following results for the tour average speed, 120 mph and 127 mph respectively - 292.5, 306.1 and 323.4 yards. The USGA algorithm would presumably show 317 yards for the current balls at 120 mph. Perhaps their algorithm assumes harder ground and more rollout. In any event the Flightscope shows a 17 yard difference between the 120 and 127 mph swing speeds - in the same ballpark as the USGA's numbers.
Anyway, all the wailing and gnashing of teeth seems a little premature and a lot over the top. The new ball may be shorter for the elite players but I doubt that it would perform substantially different in any other way. The USGA has dipped it's toe in the distance rollback water and the water is hot, albeit heated for different reasons from different pro and anti rollback and bifurcation camps.
-
This is pretty rudimentary arithmetic. We won't really know how the MLR impacts different swing speeds until some prototype balls are developed and tested and that comply with the new ODS testing protocol and standard.
The ball could be designed to go farther with Tour average swing speed. So long as it "ramps down" as they approach the single point on the curve that the USGA/R&A have established (or are talking about establishing)…
https://twitter.com/iacas/status/1636693963485634561 (https://twitter.com/iacas/status/1636693963485634561)
(https://p197.p4.n0.cdn.getcloudapp.com/items/JrupLmGj/1c74302a-0f30-4641-91b7-22b2b1af5977.jpg?v=5054a8fa97923ac7ecc773485879f624)
Perhaps their algorithm assumes harder ground and more rollout.
I think it's carry yardage only.
The new ball may be shorter for the elite players but I doubt that it would perform substantially different in any other way.
It might be longer.
-
The Donald doesn’t like the proposed roll-back:
https://politizoom.com/trump-goes-on-rage-filled-rant-about-the-united-states-golf-association-golf-balls/ (https://politizoom.com/trump-goes-on-rage-filled-rant-about-the-united-states-golf-association-golf-balls/)
-
*
-
That settles it. Make it mandatory, not local rule.
-
Now I'm kind of rooting for the grey line from Erik's chart to be closest to the reality. Flattening the marginal distance gains for each extra mile per hour of swing speed should be applauded because it would permit the best golfers in the world to shift their priorities away the relentless pursuit of distance they've been on in recent years. A pursuit, I might add, that is causing injuries among elite golfers to increase to the point where it will curtail career longevity and, likely, decrease quality of life in golfers' later years.
I used to sit near a former NFL player at basketball games who had had more than 20 back surgeries in his life. He could barely walk up and down the stairs to his seat. I feel like it's not controversial to say that part of the governing bodies' responsibility to the game involves keeping the equipment from crippling players.
-
Really? Equipment cripples golfers? That is a leap way beyond the skis.
Ciao
-
Really? Equipment cripples golfers? That is a leap way beyond the skis.
Ciao
This.
Doesn't matter what the rules say, or the equipment does. If modern Tour pros (or a small subset of them) are suffering potential crippling injury, it's not down to the equipment, it's down to the insane pursuit of a few extra yards and modern coaching. It's insane to pin it at the door of the equipment. I'm also entirely unconvinced it's an issue. Except for idiots like BdC.
-
Really? Equipment cripples golfers? That is a leap way beyond the skis.
Ciao
This.
Doesn't matter what the rules say, or the equipment does. If modern Tour pros (or a small subset of them) are suffering potential crippling injury, it's not down to the equipment, it's down to the insane pursuit of a few extra yards and modern coaching. It's insane to pin it at the door of the equipment. I'm also entirely unconvinced it's an issue. Except for idiots like BdC.
Seems like BCD’s comments are focused strictly upon how it will affect him personally and he is quoted as saying “it’s a great handicap for us guys that have worked really hard to learn how to hit it farther.” From a separation standpoint from the more average hitters I thought I read it would end up being an advantage against the field? Other players including Justin Thomas seemed to focus more on the effects on the game itself with an emphasis on amateurs.
-
This is pretty rudimentary arithmetic. We won't really know how the MLR impacts different swing speeds until some prototype balls are developed and tested and that comply with the new ODS testing protocol and standard.
The ball could be designed to go farther with Tour average swing speed. So long as it "ramps down" as they approach the single point on the curve that the USGA/R&A have established (or are talking about establishing)…
Designing and manufacturing a ball that performed as per your red line would be an engineering marvel. If the ball manufacturers could devise a ball with the red line distance vs swing speed profile why haven't they done it in the last 20 years. It would have been a sales and marketing blockbuster - you too can hit it as far as Justin or Bryson despite the fact their swing speed is 20% faster than yours. It hasn't happened in the last 20 years because it would defy the laws of physics. Not to mention that Justin and Bryson et al would have a legitimate beef that their ability to generate enormous club head speed is being penalized unfairly.
https://twitter.com/iacas/status/1636693963485634561 (https://twitter.com/iacas/status/1636693963485634561)
(https://p197.p4.n0.cdn.getcloudapp.com/items/JrupLmGj/1c74302a-0f30-4641-91b7-22b2b1af5977.jpg?v=5054a8fa97923ac7ecc773485879f624)
Perhaps their algorithm assumes harder ground and more rollout.
I think it's carry yardage only.
The ODS is carry plus bounce and roll - see the USGA's Test Protocol section 3.1 b:
"b. Use the aerodynamic parameters, as well as the launch conditions determined in section 2.1 to determine the total distance (including bounce and roll) for each orientation"
The new ball may be shorter for the elite players but I doubt that it would perform substantially different in any other way.
It might be longer.
Longer than what? My point was that a ball that conforms to the MLR will likely perform not unlike the current ball in all ways except for distance and for distance it would be shorter for all. This would be the conforming balls used by all participants in any event that utilizes the MLR. It will most likely look like your green line with slightly more tail off at the high end speeds. It's already clear that there is a tail off in distance even at the 120 mph speed. It will be slightly more tail off again at the 127 mph level.
-
All the golf magazines, all the pros, all the lessons that are given, all the manufacturers, have been pushing "hit it further" for the last three decades. No wonder we have a distance problem.
-
All the golf magazines, all the pros, all the lessons that are given, all the manufacturers, have been pushing "hit it further" for the last three decades. No wonder we have a distance problem.
Well, all the golf magazines, all the Touring pros, and all the club pros giving lessons, all get paid by the equipment manufacturers to promote "hitting it further". Follow the money!
-
Other players including Justin Thomas seemed to focus more on the effects on the game itself with an emphasis on amateurs.
Do you really think JT gives a crap about the perils of average golfers or the integrity of the game? That is just an equipment company talking point to try and get amateurs riled up that the blue coats are conspiring to "take away our guns distance". [I included the strike through in case you didn't know where that talking point has been proven effective.]
-
Yes, the game plan seems familiar. Get in the media and raise the outrage index - slam, fume, rant ... Create false narratives - it'll ruin the game; they'll take away your long ball. Claim victimhood. Transfer that victimhood to golfers at large. It's worked elsewhere.
-
It's a surprise that no ball manufacturer has yet seized the opportunity here. You know we'll be the greatest innovators to create an optimal ball under the new rule for the 0.1% of players for the Opens. We'll continue to bring the best long balls for the 99.9% of golfers. And we'll make enough Open balls so you can use them if you'd like to be like the pros - there might be a slight premium for those balls.
-
Tom and Bryan,
Spot on in your assessments!
I guess we'll find out in the next couple of years if the PGA Tour really belongs to the players. Seems like they could band together and demand their own set of rules or a line item veto of sorts be applied to the USGA rules...
P.S. I'm trying to recall if there was much pissing and moaning from the pros when they implemented the wedge face rule. Other than Phil I don't recall much, but perhaps their was...and we all know how much of a nothing-burger that turned out to be.
-
Tom and Bryan,
Spot on in your assessments!
I guess we'll find out in the next couple of years if the PGA Tour really belongs to the players. Seems like they could band together and demand their own set of rules or a line item veto of sorts be applied to the USGA rules...
P.S. I'm trying to recall if there was much pissing and moaning from the pros when they implemented the wedge face rule. Other than Phil I don't recall much, but perhaps their was...and we all know how much of a nothing-burger that turned out to be.
The PGA Tour doesn’t need a “line item veto” for this, does it? This is going to be a local rule option, which the Tour could simply NOT adopt.
-
Other players including Justin Thomas seemed to focus more on the effects on the game itself with an emphasis on amateurs.
???
Do you really think JT gives a crap about the perils of average golfers or the integrity of the game? That is just an equipment company talking point to try and get amateurs riled up that the blue coats are conspiring to "take away our guns distance". [I included the strike through in case you didn't know where that talking point has been proven effective.]
Tom-To be honest I don’t really think JT gives a crap about the perils of average golfers or the integrity of the game. I was just struck at the contrast between the two statements.
-
It's a surprise that no ball manufacturer has yet seized the opportunity here. You know we'll be the greatest innovators to create an optimal ball under the new rule for the 0.1% of players for the Opens. We'll continue to bring the best long balls for the 99.9% of golfers. And we'll make enough Open balls so you can use them if you'd like to be like the pros - there might be a slight premium for those balls.
The “opportunity” doesn’t come until 2026; right now, there’s absolutely no market for a shorter golf ball. Zero…
Tough situation for the ball manufacturers, I think. I would assume they will have significant R&D expense for what will likely be a pretty limited market, at least compared to their current business model. From a pure business perspective, this can’t be exciting news.
-
Other players including Justin Thomas seemed to focus more on the effects on the game itself with an emphasis on amateurs.
???
Do you really think JT gives a crap about the perils of average golfers or the integrity of the game? That is just an equipment company talking point to try and get amateurs riled up that the blue coats are conspiring to "take away our guns distance". [I included the strike through in case you didn't know where that talking point has been proven effective.]
Tom-To be honest I don’t really think JT gives a crap about the perils of average golfers or the integrity of the game. I was just struck at the contrast between the two statements.
I’m willing to give Justin Thomas the same credit for sincerity and thoughtfulness that each of us would like to be afforded. I don’t know anything about him to make e think otherwise, and given that his dad and grandfather were/are PGA pros, I think it’s possible that he MIGHT be thinking about the good of the game beyond his own personal bubble.
I didn’t read it carefully, but I believe I saw a story earlier in the week in which JT said he thought the new rule would help him relative to his competitors.
I think both things could be true.
-
Designing and manufacturing a ball that performed as per your red line would be an engineering marvel. If the ball manufacturers could devise a ball with the red line distance vs swing speed profile why haven't they done it in the last 20 years.
The rule is at 120 right now, so no… they'd have little incentive to boost the 100 MPH guys a few yards. And… the illustration is a bit exaggerated otherwise all of the lines would be so close together as to be somewhat indistinguishable. But a ball's distance is not linear to clubhead speed.
The ODS is carry plus bounce and roll - see the USGA's Test Protocol section 3.1 b:
Okay. They must standardize the surface. And that explains why the FlightScope Trajectory Optimizer stuff showing 315.5 made less sense.
Longer than what? My point was that a ball that conforms to the MLR will likely perform not unlike the current ball in all ways except for distance and for distance it would be shorter for all.
And my point is that it doesn't have to for "everyone" because the point on the curve at which they enforce the limits is now (in the future anyway) farther out from the Tour average.
Additionally, the change in ball characteristics may result in a change in how PGA Tour players hit the ball. Many still hit down… while they could say "oh, I can get those 14 yards back… and then some, by hitting up a bit." So, players may adjust and actually hit the new ball farther.
Well, all the golf magazines, all the Touring pros, and all the club pros giving lessons, all get paid by the equipment manufacturers to promote "hitting it further". Follow the money!
Not accurate.
JT cares about JT and JT alone. Maybe a little about TW and JS. But that's about it.a
-
Well, all the golf magazines, all the Touring pros, and all the club pros giving lessons, all get paid by the equipment manufacturers to promote "hitting it further". Follow the money!
Not accurate.
Which of these were you describing as not accurate?
1. The magazines exist in large part because of ads from the equipment manufacturers. They have always been very quick to take the JT line about how any rollback of equipment would be bad for amateurs and bad for the game.
2. The Tour pros [well, maybe not all of them, but most all of the ones who are ever quoted on the subject] are getting paid large sums by equipment manufacturers to play their product. I don't know if they have to be told to follow the company line, but most of them surely do.
3. Club professionals make money selling golf equipment. I guess they would still make money if the equipment were different, but, they do promote whatever is the latest and greatest equipment tech, in an effort to sell more equipment.
-
Tom,
While it seems (in my pretty distant knowledge) that you in particular design and build courses that “fit the land” and do not per se just chase a buck in doing so.
I know some guys do. Is it ok to lump all architects in that manner.
You didn’t write “club pros” you mentioned teaching pros and to be honest, I took that as an insult. I teach and coach to help students improve. I am paid we’ll be my students, and have a few options for fitting equipment when needed with a few guys that are great at it. And I dont make a nickel on it, because I let the best guys I know take care of a client I am trying to help with their equipment and ball choices.
Lumping all into any group is a cheap shot in many times
-
Which of these were you describing as not accurate?
Drats. I had bolded it the "all the club pros giving lessons" part, but when posted, GCA did the "tiny text" thing, so the formatting was stripped when I fixed it and I didn't notice.
Club professionals make money selling golf equipment.
Some do. There are plenty of club pros and plenty of people "giving lessons" who couldn't care much less about equipment, don't make money from it, etc.
Like me. I sell the occasional Edel wedge or putter, but otherwise… don't really care what you play. I don't sell golf balls, ever.
You didn’t write “club pros” you mentioned teaching pros and to be honest, I took that as an insult. I teach and coach to help students improve. I am paid well be my students, and have a few options for fitting equipment when needed with a few guys that are great at it. And I dont make a nickel on it, because I let the best guys I know take care of a client I am trying to help with their equipment and ball choices.Lumping all into any group is a cheap shot in many times
FWIW I'll give him a partial pass here as he did say "all the club pros giving lessons" which says both "club pros" but also "giving lessons" implying teaching pros.
-
Fair enough Erik
So
Much bs vitriol in this topic around the golf world, I shouldn’t add to it.
Too much your side/my side in every discussion these days
-
Highlighting a find and post on Twitter by Andy Meldum that references Titleists 2009 patent for a lessor distance golf ball - as the post states -
“Here is Acushnet’s (Titleist) patent for a reduced flight ball designed to conform to proposed changes in regulation. It was lodged in 2009. The R&D work has already been done despite what the OEMs will try to tell us.
https://patents.google.com/patent/US7815528B2/en (https://patents.google.com/patent/US7815528B2/en)
“
Lots of details which I imagine techie folks and stats fans may wish to read.
Atb
-
Highlighting a find and post on Twitter by Andy Meldum that references Titleists 2009 patent for a lessor distance golf ball - as the post states -
“Here is Acushnet’s (Titleist) patent for a reduced flight ball designed to conform to proposed changes in regulation. It was lodged in 2009. The R&D work has already been done despite what the OEMs will try to tell us.
https://patents.google.com/patent/US7815528B2/en (https://patents.google.com/patent/US7815528B2/en)
“
Lots of details which I imagine techie folks and stats fans may wish to read.
Atb
Whilst that patent itself was applied for in 2009, it claimed priority from a number of earlier applications, the first of which was 2002. There's also a second patent with common priority granted at the same time. Both were allowed to expire (by non-payment of renewal fees) last year. That suggests that Titleist didn't think the claimed technology was the way forward. They will have anticipated some possible form of roll back (it's inconceivable that they weren't involved in some form of discussion with the USGA). They must have other ideas. Whatever the case, it's clearly not the case that the R&D had "already been done". Some research had been done but that doesn't mean that they'll stand still.
-
Yes, they have patents in this area. They have like 1600+ patents on the golf ball, so of course they've got patents here. It's folly to say "see, they've already done the R&D, they don't need to do more!" That falls under "tell me you don't understand the business or science of golf balls without telling me you don't understand the business or science of golf balls."
Whatever the case, it's clearly not the case that the R&D had "already been done". Some research had been done but that doesn't mean that they'll stand still.
Exactly.
-
They have like 1600+ patents on the golf ball, so of course they've got patents here.
I've seen this statistic in various places but just don't buy it. A search of the espacenet patent database for Acushnet as applicant gives 2800 results. That includes patents for clubs and bags as well as balls. And also includes multiple hits for the same family (i.e. where an original application has also resulted in patents in, say, Europe and Japan, as well as just the USA (interestingly the two patents referenced above were not filed anywhere else but the USA). The actual number of golf ball inventions protected by patent will be much, much lower than 1600.
-
I've seen this statistic in various places but just don't buy it.
They're probably just lying through their teeth. (https://www.titleist.com/company/research-development)
The actual number of golf ball inventions protected by patent will be much, much lower than 1600.
I'm gonna go with what they've publicly stated over your hunch.
-
I've seen this statistic in various places but just don't buy it.
They're probably just lying through their teeth. (https://www.titleist.com/company/research-development)
The actual number of golf ball inventions protected by patent will be much, much lower than 1600.
I'm gonna go with what they've publicly stated over your hunch.
Usually you like to “stipulate” rather than just going with it. Not very convincing.
-
Usually you like to “stipulate” rather than just going with it. Not very convincing.
Did you click the link? Titleist literally saying "more than 1,600 patents" for the golf ball is "not very convincing"?
-
Usually you like to “stipulate” rather than just going with it. Not very convincing.
Did you click the link? Titleist literally saying "more than 1,600 patents" for the golf ball is "not very convincing"?
You should have left the troll comment in there. I was making reference to other posts where you stated “you were willing to stipulate” to something like you were giving a court ordered deposition. The reality is it isn’t necessary as this is only a golf course architecture forum. Not surprised it went over your head as it’s clear you take yourself pretty seriously. ::)
-
You should have left the troll comment in there.
Okay, Troll Tim. Like a few others here, you'd rather discuss me than the topic.
I was making reference to other posts where you stated “you were willing to stipulate” to something like you were giving a court ordered deposition.
It has a definition. Yes, it's often used in legal proceedings, but it's used in debate and discussion too. Because it has a definition:
(https://p197.p4.n0.cdn.getcloudapp.com/items/4guN99dq/69c951dd-6571-4f97-b7d0-5ffb0c5c605a.jpg?v=d5b5b80c6eedac9a8b579ea444fa180d)
The reality is it isn’t necessary as this is only a golf course architecture forum. Not surprised it went over your head as it’s clear you take yourself pretty seriously. ::)
No, not really. This stuff is just golf. Comments like that show how very poorly you know me.
-
I've seen this statistic in various places but just don't buy it.
They're probably just lying through their teeth. (https://www.titleist.com/company/research-development)
The actual number of golf ball inventions protected by patent will be much, much lower than 1600.
I'm gonna go with what they've publicly stated over your hunch.
That isn't a hunch. You may not be aware that Mark is a very successful IP lawyer.
By the way Erik, are you this much of an asshole in real life, or is it just your message board persona?
-
I've seen this statistic in various places but just don't buy it.
They're probably just lying through their teeth. (https://www.titleist.com/company/research-development)
The actual number of golf ball inventions protected by patent will be much, much lower than 1600.
I'm gonna go with what they've publicly stated over your hunch.
It's not a hunch. It's clearly true to anyone that actually knows anything about patents. Which have been central to my career for 30 years. But yes, you and your astonishing arrogance have at it.
-
By the way Erik, are you this much of an asshole in real life, or is it just your message board persona?
An interesting question. I have absolutely no desire whatsoever to find out, though, in case, as seems likely, the answer actually is yes.
-
Designing and manufacturing a ball that performed as per your red line would be an engineering marvel. If the ball manufacturers could devise a ball with the red line distance vs swing speed profile why haven't they done it in the last 20 years.
The rule is at 120 right now, so no… they'd have little incentive to boost the 100 MPH guys a few yards. And… the illustration is a bit exaggerated otherwise all of the lines would be so close together as to be somewhat indistinguishable. But a ball's distance is not linear to clubhead speed.
I'm unclear what you are saying. Is it that there will be little difference below 120 mph with a more severe flattening from 120 to 127 mph?
As to the distance-clubhead speed relationship, it is pretty darned linear with a slight tail off at the highest speed.
Hopefully you're already aware of the following from a USGA study in 2011 which covers the range of speeds from 90 to 125.
(https://www.usga.org/content/dam/usga/images/imported/articles/2011/04/2c28478f-2c9a-44d7-97f4-55ab63c01b68.jpg)
The tail off, although small, is caused by diminishing COR with higher clubhead speeds as seen in the following from the same USGA study. In any event designing and manufacturing a ball that tails off rapidly above 120 mph seems unlikely to me. Maybe flattening the slope of the whole, almost linear, distance-swing speed curve might be possible, but if it was, I'd imagine they would have done it already as it advantages the recreational golfers who buy the most balls.
(https://www.usga.org/content/dam/usga/images/imported/articles/2011/04/5b60a20b-6594-4044-8c8b-1f9957d5a9fb.jpg)
The ODS is carry plus bounce and roll - see the USGA's Test Protocol section 3.1 b:
Okay. They must standardize the surface. And that explains why the FlightScope Trajectory Optimizer stuff showing 315.5 made less sense.
Longer than what? My point was that a ball that conforms to the MLR will likely perform not unlike the current ball in all ways except for distance and for distance it would be shorter for all.
And my point is that it doesn't have to for "everyone" because the point on the curve at which they enforce the limits is now (in the future anyway) farther out from the Tour average.
Not sure what you're trying to say here. I was saying that the shorter ball will likely spin, roll, fly etc the same as the current ball does for all recreational and elite players according to their skills. It'll just go shorter. What that has to do with being further out than the tour average is not clear to me.
Additionally, the change in ball characteristics may result in a change in how PGA Tour players hit the ball. Many still hit down… while they could say "oh, I can get those 14 yards back… and then some, by hitting up a bit." So, players may adjust and actually hit the new ball farther.
The new ALC are supposed to be the optimal launch conditions at 127 mph. I'm a little skeptical and they say they are going to review that. If they are the optimal launch conditions, then hitting up on the ball will change an individual's launch conditions but they will be less optimal and not yield more distance. I'd imagine that the USGA, and you, are aware of the Trackman test results for positive angles of attack and optimal launch conditions.
If the USGA gets the optimal launch conditions wrong then sure the players will be able to game the distance standard.
The tour players data about hitting down on the ball is 4 or 5 years old. I'd imagine it's probably more on the positive side now as the players continue the pursuit of the optimal launch conditions for their swing speed to achieve the greatest distance and accuracy.
-
Many, if not most, of the big manufactures list on their websites what patents they have assigned to which products:
- Titleist (https://www.titleist.com/patents)
- Bridgestone (https://www.bridgestonegolf.com/en_US/patents)
- Callaway (https://www.callawaygolf.com/legal-patents.html)
- TaylorMade (https://www.taylormadegolf.com/about-us/pat.html?lang=en_US)
- Ping (https://ping.com/en-us/legal/patents)
-
Brandel Chamblee tweeted a quite long summary of Mark Broadie's analysis purporting to show that the length PGA players hit the ball over the last few decades has not appreciably changed how courses are played. (I don't know how to attach the tweet to this post). The percentage of short irons hit into greens has remained quite constant; and the contribution of driving to winning has remained constant. Chamblee concludes that "distance gains can be mitigated by philosophy of design and setup." He points to two fixes - more rough and less deforestation.
I think more rough would be an effective fix for tournament golf, but one not well tolerated by daily club play. Casual golfers will resist the problems created by high rough - slower play caused by looking for balls and impossible recovery shots. Leaving a few tress to present obstacles for poorly hit shots is another matter. Having to work balls around trees has been a staple in golf forever, and the recent deforestation trend has gone too far. Yes, remove enough trees to promote grass growth, but not so many as to remove the challenge of recovering from a poorly hit shot.
-
Many, if not most, of the big manufactures list on their websites what patents they have assigned to which products:
- Titleist (https://www.titleist.com/patents)
- Bridgestone (https://www.bridgestonegolf.com/en_US/patents)
- Callaway (https://www.callawaygolf.com/legal-patents.html)
- TaylorMade (https://www.taylormadegolf.com/about-us/pat.html?lang=en_US)
- Ping (https://ping.com/en-us/legal/patents)
Thanks, Ben.
Looking at the Titleist page, I see 60 different patents for the 2019 ProV1X, which is the most for any of those balls. A bunch of those patents (most, in fact) are duplicated across other balls (as would be expected). Taking that duplication into account we aren't seeing more than a few dozen ball patents here. Now, obviously, they aren't listing patents that they're not using (like, for instance, the reduced ball flight patent mentioned earlier). Or expired patents (like the two patents for reduced ball flight, coming from the application listed).
To be honest, that's still a lot of patents for something like a golf ball. But 1600 inventions it isn't. Not by a very large distance.
They also don't, on that link, list foreign equivalents to those patents (which are all US patents). So what we're seeing are, literally, dozens of patented inventions. They may get to 1600 patents by counting expired patents and foreign equivalents. Possibly.
Still, looks like my "hunch" regarding the number of inventions was spot on, by a factor of 10, or more.
-
Having to work balls around trees has been a staple in golf forever
Jim
I'm not sure Old Tom Morris would agree with you if he was still alive. But setting aside my smartarse comment, on how many courses on the PGA Tour for instance, does a golfer have to flight a ball round a tree if they are say 5 to 10 yards off the fairway ? I've no idea as I don't watch much professional golf but would be interested to know.
Niall
-
Mark,
Thanks for your insights on all this.
In my line of work, tech, patents are a strange animal indeed. In theory while its supposed to allow ideas and innovation to make into the public with financial protections, as a practical matter it was odd to say the least.
I've sat in no fewer than 3 meetings with lawyers instructing us to never, ever, ever look up/read/analyze any other company's patents and especially not those of a direct competitor. And god forbid if we did, never share ideas in company emails or even on company premises. Also had a co-worker author and write the most beautiful technical patent I've ever seen, only to be told it was far too specific and detailed and do the whole thing over from scratch so it was incredibly vague.
As far as I could tell, they were only encouraged so Executives could whip them out in braggartly style and exclaim "behold my war-chest" and/or use them as an excuse to sue and counter-sure competitors willy nilly for any and all reasons, whether it was related to the patent or not.
-
Niall: I don’t know either, but probably a lot less than was the case 20 years ago. A lot of critics of the proposed bifurcated ball rule are pointing to a few more trees as a solution. There’s no denying that tree removal has been a “thing” lately. It’s certainly been glorified on this cite.
As for Old Tom - wind, gorse, heather and penal bunkers work too.
-
As far as I could tell, they were only encouraged so Executives could whip them out in braggartly style and exclaim "behold my war-chest" and/or use them as an excuse to sue and counter-sure competitors willy nilly for any and all reasons, whether it was related to the patent or not.
There are certainly areas where this is the case. In SEP/FRAND negotiations between the big mobile telephony providers at least, they do almost literally compare the weight of their bags of patents!
Your first two paragraphs are interesting and are, I suspect, an inevitable result of the triple damages rule in US patent law, which allow for the award of tripled damages where the infringer was aware of the infringement (I'm not a US attorney, so triple damages are outside my detailed knowledge). I think it's easier for businesses to monitor their competitors' patent activity in other jurisdictions and I have clients that do just that. Indeed, in a previous life as a physicist/engineer, I was involved in monitoring competitor patents.
-
It's not a hunch. It's clearly true to anyone that actually knows anything about patents. Which have been central to my career for 30 years. But yes, you and your astonishing arrogance have at it.
I'm not sure how it's "arrogance" on my part seeing as how I'm only citing that Titleist says they have over 1,600 patents applying to the golf ball on their website. You are saying they're lying, I guess. That's between you and them.
As for your (or Adam's) name-calling and personal attacks… I'm here to talk about the topic. You wanna go all personal attacks and name-calling or whatever, by all means…
Hopefully you're already aware of the following from a USGA study in 2011 which covers the range of speeds from 90 to 125.
I've posted the image (probably not here, obviously), so yes, I am. Did you see how the Tour Balata responded? It tailed off more quickly; it wasn't as nearly linear. This is (I suspect) why many Tour players thought the solid-core ball got a "boost" when you "got into the core" with a swing speed above 110 MPH or something when it was first released.
What that has to do with being further out than the tour average is not clear to me.
They have a little more room to curve the line a bit. That's all I was saying there. Imagine if they pushed the single point at which they measure a ball out to 200 MPH of clubhead speed… they could monkey with the performance back at 115 quite a bit. Different layers react to different clubhead speeds.
The new ALC are supposed to be the optimal launch conditions at 127 mph. I'm a little skeptical and they say they are going to review that. If they are the optimal launch conditions, then hitting up on the ball will change an individual's launch conditions but they will be less optimal and not yield more distance. I'd imagine that the USGA, and you, are aware of the Trackman test results for positive angles of attack and optimal launch conditions.
You misunderstood or I wasn't clear in what I was saying or something there.
The ALC says nothing about the AoA. It says 2220 RPM, 11°, and 127 MPH clubhead speed (probably 190.5 MPH ball speed), with some small tolerances. It is irrelevant how that's achieved, only that those conditions are achieved. That is the optimal launch for that ball speed, or very close to it.
My point was that many players on the PGA Tour are willingly giving up yardage by hitting down some and not achieving their own optimal launch conditions, and the new ball may lead to them changing that a bit, maybe getting closer to optimal for their own clubhead delivery/conditions.
Take away some yardage, and Tour players may just change the way they swing, or tee it up a bit higher, etc. and get much of that lost 14 yards or whatever right back. This might literally not do much of anything that they don't work around in short order. So the ball change might not even reduce driver distance on the PGA Tour by much if they change what they're doing a bit.
The tour players data about hitting down on the ball is 4 or 5 years old.
The data I have is from 2022. It's still slightly down AFAIK.
I don't think they can achieve the red line, or even the grey line as illustrated. Again, they were exaggerated illustrations to show that I think they can do more than just the green line. The lines were drawn "bigger" or "more spaced out" so as to make the graphic more obvious, otherwise… they'd all be close together. I think the curve they can achieve is small, but still a curve.
At the end of the day, this reduction feels like about a 4% reduction, which IMO is almost not worth the hassle it will create. And it feels like they'll have to do this all over again in like 15 years. Why they didn't just go for an 8% or even 10% reduction seems a bit silly to me (and I hate that it's via bifurcation, too).
https://twitter.com/iacas/status/1637782699967479809 (https://twitter.com/iacas/status/1637782699967479809)
1. I don’t think “they” needed to do anything for a tiny % of the game’s players. 6500 yards is enough for ~95%.
2. If they were going to do something, they should have gone further AND done it for everyone. Complete rollback, not bifurcation.
Many, if not most, of the big manufactures list on their websites what patents they have assigned to which products:
As you know, those aren't the only "golf ball patents" they have.
Chamblee concludes that "distance gains can be mitigated by philosophy of design and setup." He points to two fixes - more rough and less deforestation.
More rough favors longer hitters. I forget who said it (Edit: Harry Higgs, actually): if the fairway was 2 yards wide on a 450-yard par four, nobody's going to just hit a 9I and try to hit the fairway. They're gonna blast it down there as far as they can, Bryson-at-Winged-Foot style.
To be honest, that's still a lot of patents for something like a golf ball. But 1600 inventions it isn't. Not by a very large distance.
I'll link to it again. It's not like I'm making up a number. I'm just citing what they said themselves: https://www.titleist.com/company/research-development (https://www.titleist.com/company/research-development)
I linked to it before (Post #159), and it's the source of the "1,600" number. It has nothing to do with what I "believe" or anything on my part: I'm just citing a public web page. If you think Titleist is fibbing, that's between you and them. Maybe you can call them bad names. :) They'll probably care about as much as I do.
-
Erik,
I almost admire the way that rather than just admit to being wrong or, as is clearly the case here, simply not understanding something outside your area of expertise, you just double down. Or lay the blame at someone else's door. What you clearly don't do is actually read and consider what is being said by others.
Have you ever thought of a career in politics? You are ideally suited.
-
I almost admire the way that rather than just admit to being wrong or, as is clearly the case here, simply not understanding something outside your area of expertise, you just double down. Or lay the blame at someone else's door. What you clearly don't do is actually read and consider what is being said by others.
https://www.titleist.com/company/research-development (https://www.titleist.com/company/research-development)
What exactly am I "wrong" about here? The page says:
The Titleist Golf Ball R&D team, driven by a commitment to continuous improvement and innovation, is made up of over 75 chemists, physicists, mathematicians, computer scientists, engineers and technicians, as well as PGA Professionals and turf management specialists.
Due to their work, Titleist owns the industry’s largest portfolio of golf ball intellectual property with more than 1,600 patents. Since 2010, Titleist has been awarded 50 percent of all golf ball patents issued in the United States. This group of experts shares over 1,500 years of collective experience.
-
Brandel Chamblee tweeted a quite long summary of Mark Broadie's analysis purporting to show that the length PGA players hit the ball over the last few decades has not appreciably changed how courses are played. (I don't know how to attach the tweet to this post). The percentage of short irons hit into greens has remained quite constant; and the contribution of driving to winning has remained constant.
I would like to know if the courses being played have gotten longer. I would bet that they have. So if holes are 15 yards longer on average then even with longer drives they are hitting the same clubs into greens. So we need to keep lengthening courses to make them play the same, and isn't that the trend that the R&A and USGA are trying to stop?
Look at ANGC - according to this webpage (https://www.liveabout.com/what-are-the-yardages-at-augusta-national-during-the-masters-1564592) ANGC is 550 yards longer than when Tiger first won in 1997. And this year it will be even longer as 13 was lengthened - perhaps other holes were as well.
-
I would like to know if the courses being played have gotten longer. I would bet that they have.
I would too. So, yeah, that study is of limited use, I think.
I have updated graphics, for those who asked.
Par 3s:
(https://p197.p4.n0.cdn.getcloudapp.com/items/nOuKkjkQ/dd42b3f9-7175-436f-81e3-f8bdf397c5ee.png?v=03987a87c0c73d4e08919de0b3887a00)
Par 4s:
(https://p197.p4.n0.cdn.getcloudapp.com/items/bLulREwg/12479b12-8694-477d-89a7-7a1e4c84e21b.png?v=d4a64f0045c7d0549356056f3c0094df)
Par 3s and 4s:
(https://p197.p4.n0.cdn.getcloudapp.com/items/v1uP2X4K/84a2e9fe-fde1-436d-8ce5-d57c44cda0be.png?v=31e6fb51a5f52e9bd70a834f8d18086b)
Par 5s:
(https://p197.p4.n0.cdn.getcloudapp.com/items/8LuqP8n5/c8484730-4f5b-4c39-8f64-2da94ba61467.png?v=5184a8575d2e1a146330e8c60743ddc7)
These are from Lou, and you can find these on Twitter. As they say, they're 2022-23.
I'm also seeing people saying this will be a return to shotmaking (one of the guys interviewed last week on TGC said this too), and I just don't see it. A 15-yard reduction in driver distance will not result in "the return of shotmaking."
-
The “opportunity” doesn’t come until 2026; right now, there’s absolutely no market for a shorter golf ball. Zero…
...
Well techically there is a small market for shorter golf balls.
Q: Can I use my own golf balls?
A: No, the whole course is designed to be played with our Cayman ball. For full enjoyment of the game and for safety reasonsyou may not use the conventional golf ball on our Cayman golf course. Cayman Balls are supplied upon payment of the game.
Also, some clubs that don't have acreage for typical ranges provide ranges stocked with Cayman Balls.
-
Erik,
I've posted the image (probably not here, obviously), so yes, I am. Did you see how the Tour Balata responded? It tailed off more quickly; it wasn't as nearly linear.
I've never found a credible swing speed-distance graph comparable to the one from the USGA study of the modern ball. If you have one, please share with the source. There's lots of anecdotal samples using balata balls out there but not one that covers all the swing speeds in one study. Even I've hit balata balls in a launch monitor but I only have one swing speed - slow.
They have a little more room to curve the line a bit. That's all I was saying there. Imagine if they pushed the single point at which they measure a ball out to 200 MPH of clubhead speed… they could monkey with the performance back at 115 quite a bit. Different layers react to different clubhead speeds.
I think that your perception that the manufacturers can "monkey" with performance at individual points on a swing speed-distance curve is likely physically impossible.
The ALC says nothing about the AoA. It says 2220 RPM, 11°, and 127 MPH clubhead speed (probably 190.5 MPH ball speed), with some small tolerances. It is irrelevant how that's achieved, only that those conditions are achieved. That is the optimal launch for that ball speed, or very close to it.
Agreed, nothing about AoA in the ALC. Whether those are optimal launch conditions for that club speed remains in doubt in my mind. I thought you were suggesting that players would adjust their AoA to achieve something closer to optimal launch conditions for themselves. Sure, that's possible but if the ALC has the correct optimal launch conditions then no amount of adjusting will get anybody more optimal launch conditions in their individual launches. Might players be able to achieve better distance results with the rolled back ball? It's possible if their current launch conditions are sub-optimal enough and they can retool their swings to get to the optimum.
Consider the following table with the current years's 5 longest drivers on the PGA Tour. You'll notice that all of them are below the median swing speed of the USGA's 1% of the 7 tours. (I guess the bombers are on the Korn Ferry Tour). You'll notice that Matthews and Champ are pretty close to the 127 mph ALC condition. Their spin is pretty close to the ALC 2220 rpm condition. Matthews is pretty close to the 11* launch angle while Champ is way off at 7.17*. Matthews is marginally over the ODC. Champ is a bit under but could exceed if he could get his launch angle up.
Even the most elite 1% are not much over the ODS with the current ball. The ALC conditions may reduce the distance by 10-15 yards. If the Flightscope Trajectory Optimizer is to be believed their are more yards to be gained by increasing launch angles and reducing spin compared to the proposed ALC conditions.
Anyway the rollback will get lost in the variation from day to day due to wind, course softness or firmness, altitude, etc. The USGA has dipped their toe in and the water is very hot. Imagine if they'd actually bit the bullet and set the ALC at 135 mph. That would have had a substantial impact. Or, if they keep the Initial Velocity condition.
| Name | Distance | Club Speed | Ball Speed | Spin | Launch Angle |
| |
| Rory McIlroy | 326.6 | 122.52 | 184.64 | 2217.5 | 11.39 |
| Brandon Matthews | 321.2 | 126.00 | 189.12 | 2479.8 | 11.28 |
| Cameron Young | 315.8 | 123.46 | 186.10 | 2520.5 | 10.94 |
| Cameron Champ | 314.3 | 125.99 | 189.45 | 2374.5 | 7.17 |
| John Rahm | 314.1 | 120.04 | 181.41 | 2229.6 | 10.21 |
-
I've never found a credible swing speed-distance graph comparable to the one from the USGA study of the modern ball.
That graph is for the modern ball, albeit from around 2005.
If you have one, please share with the source. There's lots of anecdotal samples using balata balls out there but not one that covers all the swing speeds in one study. Even I've hit balata balls in a launch monitor but I only have one swing speed - slow.
I do, but cannot share it, as it's not mine to share, nor is it publicly available AFAIK. It was less linear.
I think that your perception that the manufacturers can "monkey" with performance at individual points on a swing speed-distance curve is likely physically impossible.
I am not saying that they can at several individual points. I'm saying that it doesn't have to be as linear as the current golf ball is, and so given that the one point at which it is regulated will be even farther from the point at which modern PGA Tour players swing, on average, there's potential for them to have a curve to the line. Maybe they won't find that it's in their best interests to create that ball (they haven't for the modern ball, and this is only a 7 MPH difference, so I wouldn't be willing to bet more than a few bucks for interest that they would for the MLR ball either), but it's not "physically impossible," as it's existed before. An AlmostGolf ball exhibits a non-linear response — it's not a real golf ball, it's a firm but lightweight foam ball, but it demonstrates that it's not impossible.
Agreed, nothing about AoA in the ALC. Whether those are optimal launch conditions for that club speed remains in doubt in my mind.
Adjusting the launch to 12° per the https://trajectory.flightscope.com/ (https://trajectory.flightscope.com/) indicates that perhaps they're not, so… I wonder if they'll adjust them. Or if FS is just off a little. The longer, better players are pretty close to 2220 (https://www.pgatour.com/stats/detail/02405) and 11 (https://www.pgatour.com/stats/detail/02404), though (McIlroy was almost spot on those two numbers).
I thought you were suggesting that players would adjust their AoA to achieve something closer to optimal launch conditions for themselves.
I am. Many of them are willingly giving up yards right now in favor of a little more control, but it could be an unintended consequence that they get those yards right back (and maybe more).
About ten years ago, I saw how a Tour player could gain 30 yards pretty much instantly. He hit down a little, played a little too much loft, and spun the ball a bit too much with the driver. He liked the ball with all the other clubs, and he was already top 25 on Tour for distance, and he felt "out of control" when he launched the ball with the conditions that would get him 30 extra yards. He "liked" seeing a lower launching ball that spun a bit more and got on the ground a bit earlier, and he was already, in his opinion, "long enough."
Sure, that's possible but if the ALC has the correct optimal launch conditions
It has nothing to do with the ALC. I'm saying that a guy who hits it 304 now, to pick a number, but does so sub-optimally may hit it 306 with the MLR ball because they make some changes to hit it closer to optimal.
You later get to this, so I'm not sure where the miscommunication occurred, but I think we finally get to being on the same page there.
Might players be able to achieve better distance results with the rolled back ball? It's possible if their current launch conditions are sub-optimal enough and they can retool their swings to get to the optimum.
That's what I'm saying. The change is so small (~4%), that some guys will be able to get that 4% back. Maybe not Rory, as he's already pretty close to optimal, but not everyone is as close to optimal as Rory is.
Anyway the rollback will get lost in the variation from day to day due to wind, course softness or firmness, altitude, etc. The USGA has dipped their toe in and the water is very hot. Imagine if they'd actually bit the bullet and set the ALC at 135 mph. That would have had a substantial impact. Or, if they keep the Initial Velocity condition.
The USGA/R&A didn't go far enough, IMO. They should have gone a full 8% or so. I don't see how they won't need to do something like this again in 10 or 12 years. But then again, I still am not entirely sure how they didn't foresee companies being able to add short game spin to a Pinnacle or Top-Flite 25 years ago.
-
Rory has chimed in and good on him. Completely agreed.
"For elite-level play, I really like it. I really do," Northern Ireland's world No. 3 told the "No Laying Up" podcast this week. "I'm glad in this new proposal that they haven't touched the recreational golfer."
https://www.espn.com/golf/story/_/id/35917203/rory-mcilroy-supports-proposals-limit-ball-distance
-
I've never found a credible swing speed-distance graph comparable to the one from the USGA study of the modern ball.
That graph is for the modern ball, albeit from around 2005.
If you have one, please share with the source. There's lots of anecdotal samples using balata balls out there but not one that covers all the swing speeds in one study. Even I've hit balata balls in a launch monitor but I only have one swing speed - slow.
I do, but cannot share it, as it's not mine to share, nor is it publicly available AFAIK. It was less linear.
I think that your perception that the manufacturers can "monkey" with performance at individual points on a swing speed-distance curve is likely physically impossible.
I am not saying that they can at several individual points. I'm saying that it doesn't have to be as linear as the current golf ball is, and so given that the one point at which it is regulated will be even farther from the point at which modern PGA Tour players swing, on average, there's potential for them to have a curve to the line. Maybe they won't find that it's in their best interests to create that ball (they haven't for the modern ball, and this is only a 7 MPH difference, so I wouldn't be willing to bet more than a few bucks for interest that they would for the MLR ball either), but it's not "physically impossible," as it's existed before. An AlmostGolf ball exhibits a non-linear response — it's not a real golf ball, it's a firm but lightweight foam ball, but it demonstrates that it's not impossible.
Agreed, nothing about AoA in the ALC. Whether those are optimal launch conditions for that club speed remains in doubt in my mind.
Adjusting the launch to 12° per the https://trajectory.flightscope.com/ (https://trajectory.flightscope.com/) indicates that perhaps they're not, so… I wonder if they'll adjust them. Or if FS is just off a little. The longer, better players are pretty close to 2220 (https://www.pgatour.com/stats/detail/02405) and 11 (https://www.pgatour.com/stats/detail/02404), though (McIlroy was almost spot on those two numbers).
I thought you were suggesting that players would adjust their AoA to achieve something closer to optimal launch conditions for themselves.
I am. Many of them are willingly giving up yards right now in favor of a little more control, but it could be an unintended consequence that they get those yards right back (and maybe more).
About ten years ago, I saw how a Tour player could gain 30 yards pretty much instantly. He hit down a little, played a little too much loft, and spun the ball a bit too much with the driver. He liked the ball with all the other clubs, and he was already top 25 on Tour for distance, and he felt "out of control" when he launched the ball with the conditions that would get him 30 extra yards. He "liked" seeing a lower launching ball that spun a bit more and got on the ground a bit earlier, and he was already, in his opinion, "long enough."
Sure, that's possible but if the ALC has the correct optimal launch conditions
It has nothing to do with the ALC. I'm saying that a guy who hits it 304 now, to pick a number, but does so sub-optimally may hit it 306 with the MLR ball because they make some changes to hit it closer to optimal.
You later get to this, so I'm not sure where the miscommunication occurred, but I think we finally get to being on the same page there.
Might players be able to achieve better distance results with the rolled back ball? It's possible if their current launch conditions are sub-optimal enough and they can retool their swings to get to the optimum.
That's what I'm saying. The change is so small (~4%), that some guys will be able to get that 4% back. Maybe not Rory, as he's already pretty close to optimal, but not everyone is as close to optimal as Rory is.
Anyway the rollback will get lost in the variation from day to day due to wind, course softness or firmness, altitude, etc. The USGA has dipped their toe in and the water is very hot. Imagine if they'd actually bit the bullet and set the ALC at 135 mph. That would have had a substantial impact. Or, if they keep the Initial Velocity condition.
The USGA/R&A didn't go far enough, IMO. They should have gone a full 8% or so. I don't see how they won't need to do something like this again in 10 or 12 years. But then again, I still am not entirely sure how they didn't foresee companies being able to add short game spin to a Pinnacle or Top-Flite 25 years ago.
Erik.
Some interesting stuff.
I had two personal experiences that were amazing to me
In 1997, I had a serious wrist injury, basically couldn’t play for 3 years.
When I started to play again, I was using the same 1996 Callaway driver I used prior to injury.
I was carrying that driver just under 255 post injury, even with the new solid core ball.
I went down to Callaway to test for a new driver and was launching my old driver at 9 degrees with nearly 3000 rpm.
In 45 minutes, I had changed to a 10.5 degree driver with a shaft that had a higher flex point
It was an easy adjustment to change my angle of attack to 2 degrees up (from one down) and all of a sudden I was carrying the ball12/13 yards further. In one afternoon! The only real adjustment was getting used to seeing the ball so much higher in the sky
When I attempted Champions tour after a 10 year break I was a low spin low launch player with my irons. Worked with Leadbetter to up my irons launch/spin and after one day with him gained about 25/30 feet in height and 500+ rpm spin on a six iron!
In tow months those changes took hold and a. Onus was that I could launch my driver higher with less loft and gained 8-10 yards
The ability players will have to optimize will be very interesting to watch.
Justin Thomas is pretty maxed out it seems with driver and is probably not too happy in part, due to that.
-
This from Rory McIlroy: "It would be like me going back to my 2015 equipment. I've gained 15 yards in the last six or seven years, and they're saying it's basically a 15- to 20-yard reduction in distance ... It would just be like me playing golf again in 2015, and I seemed to do okay then."
[/size]
[/size]He gets it.
-
This from Rory McIlroy: "It would be like me going back to my 2015 equipment. I've gained 15 yards in the last six or seven years, and they're saying it's basically a 15- to 20-yard reduction in distance ... It would just be like me playing golf again in 2015, and I seemed to do okay then."
He gets it.
Tim-I was happy to see Rory diverge from the PGA Tour talking points although I can’t imagine they are happy with his public stance.
-
I had two personal experiences that were amazing to me
In 1997, I had a serious wrist injury, basically couldn’t play for 3 years.
When I started to play again, I was using the same 1996 Callaway driver I used prior to injury.
I was carrying that driver just under 255 post injury, even with the new solid core ball.
I went down to Callaway to test for a new driver and was launching my old driver at 9 degrees with nearly 3000 rpm.
In 45 minutes, I had changed to a 10.5 degree driver with a shaft that had a higher flex point
It was an easy adjustment to change my angle of attack to 2 degrees up (from one down) and all of a sudden I was carrying the ball12/13 yards further. In one afternoon! The only real adjustment was getting used to seeing the ball so much higher in the sky
You could adjust to it, though, from what I assume! Some guys (typically the longer ones) don't like to see the ball get too high up in the air. Cam Champ too.
When I attempted Champions tour after a 10 year break I was a low spin low launch player with my irons. Worked with Leadbetter to up my irons launch/spin and after one day with him gained about 25/30 feet in height and 500+ rpm spin on a six iron!
Wow. That's a LOT.
The ability players will have to optimize will be very interesting to watch.
Justin Thomas is pretty maxed out it seems with driver and is probably not too happy in part, due to that.
Some of them are pretty maxed out, yeah. Rory is about as optimal as he's going to get. Others aren't, yeah.
Thanks for the post.
-
This from Rory McIlroy: "It would be like me going back to my 2015 equipment. I've gained 15 yards in the last six or seven years, and they're saying it's basically a 15- to 20-yard reduction in distance ... It would just be like me playing golf again in 2015, and I seemed to do okay then."
He gets it.
Tim-I was happy to see Rory diverge from the PGA Tour talking points although I can’t imagine they are happy with his public stance.
Tim that would be ball manufacturer’s[size=78%] talking points, not PGA Tour ones. I’m sure Taylor Made wasn’t real happy in this case.[/size]
-
This from Rory McIlroy: "It would be like me going back to my 2015 equipment. I've gained 15 yards in the last six or seven years, and they're saying it's basically a 15- to 20-yard reduction in distance ... It would just be like me playing golf again in 2015, and I seemed to do okay then."
He gets it.
Tim-I was happy to see Rory diverge from the PGA Tour talking points although I can’t imagine they are happy with his public stance.
Tim that would be ball manufacturer’s[size=78%] talking points, not PGA Tour ones. I’m sure Taylor Made wasn’t real happy in this case.[/size]
John-Thanks for that as I guess I conflated what Justin Thomas said with the PGA Tour. I hope you are doing well. :)
-
[
John-Thanks for that as I guess I conflated what Justin Thomas said with the PGA Tour. I hope you are doing well. :)
Thomas's words came almost straight out of the Titleist press release.
Anyone who thinks fans don't want to see players' character tested by having to hit scary iron shots is deluded.
Thirteen and fifteen at are exciting because the whole field treats them as par fours..
But try calling them on the card.
-
Thirteen and fifteen at are exciting because the whole field treats them as par fours..
And yet… 15's scoring average has never been closer to 4 than 5 and 13's low year was 2019 at 4.474 with a historical average of 4.77 (and like 15, is above 4.5 the past 10 years).
(Not directed at you, but at the general group…) I love how often this board simultaneously argues for "half-par" holes and also argues against 13 and/or 15 (and others on other courses).
-
When the US Open was at Congressional in the 1997, they made changed the par on #6 from 5 to 4.
Payne Stewart went to Tom Meeks and complained that it should be a 5. Tom replied that if Payne promised not to go for it in two, he’d change it back to a 5. ;)
-
It seems to me that the result of this MRL will be to knock 15-20 yards off of everyone playing competitive professional golf more or less equally across the board [size=78%]and swill shift everyone into longer shots into the greens. [/size][/size][size=78%] I just don’t see how this doesn’t just shift the advantage even more to the longest hitters on tour, further emphasizing distance as the most important factor in the game. [/size]
[/size]
[/size][size=78%]I also get that this will stave off some need to keep lengthening golf courses. [/size]
[/size]
[/size][size=78%]Which problem is this really solving for? Is it for the courses or for the nature of the game or both. I just don’t see how favoring the longest golfers is the best way to address “distance.”[/size]
[/size]
[/size][size=78%]Is there not some way to modify the ball or clubs so that miss hits at the highest swing speeds are punished sufficiently to place a better reward on precise and fast ball striking, not just fast speeds?[/size]
-
So probably a dumb question but is the sweet spot the same for everyone to maximize distance or is it all relative to the individual?
In other words is the optimum launch angle and spin different for everyone? If so does a chart exist. Just wondering as a 60 year old with max 101 clubhead speed.
-
It seems to me that the result of this MRL will be to knock 15-20 yards off of everyone playing competitive professional golf more or less equally across the board and swill shift everyone into longer shots into the greens. I just don’t see how this doesn’t just shift the advantage even more to the longest hitters on tour, further emphasizing distance as the most important factor in the game.
You've got it… it will likely increase the emphasis (and advantage) of driving distance.
-
I am supportive of the proposed roll-back, but--
Did you see the tee shot that Rory just hit on the 18th of the Match Play? One of the greatest shots I've ever seen in golf. Carried it onto the 18th Green over 350 yards with the match on the line. The announcers were saying that if the new rule would stop that, it shouldn't happen. It was incredible. It will be shown on replay--maybe forever.
-
I am supportive of the proposed roll-back, but--
Did you see the tee shot that Rory just hit on the 18th of the Match Play? One of the greatest shots I've ever seen in golf. Carried it onto the 18th Green over 350 yards with the match on the line. The announcers were saying that if the new rule would stop that, it shouldn't happen. It was incredible. It will be shown on replay--maybe forever.
It won’t be any less impressive if they move the tee blocks up 20 yards and he does it from 330.
-
So probably a dumb question but is the sweet spot the same for everyone to maximize distance or is it all relative to the individual?
In other words is the optimum launch angle and spin different for everyone? If so does a chart exist. Just wondering as a 60 year old with max 101 clubhead speed.
Not a dumb question. Different sweet spots that depend on your swing speed/smash factor/ball speed and the ball you're using.
There are charts out there that are easy to find. Here are three. And/or you could fiddle around with the Flightscope trajectory optimizer that's easy to find online..
(https://wrxcdn.golfwrx.com/uploads/monthly_2022_05/PingOptimalChart.png.fa579bd72d9c72f7bcb9c96867063a17.png)
(https://www.mygolfdistance.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Angle-of-attack-optimal-distance-graphic.png)
(https://www.tomfieldinggolf.net/uploads/6/1/5/6/6156967/trackman-driver_orig.png)
-
It seems to me that the result of this MRL will be to knock 15-20 yards off of everyone playing competitive professional golf more or less equally across the board and swill shift everyone into longer shots into the greens. I just don’t see how this doesn’t just shift the advantage even more to the longest hitters on tour, further emphasizing distance as the most important factor in the game.
You've got it… it will likely increase the emphasis (and advantage) of driving distance.
Not sure how it increases emphasis on distance or makes length more of an advantage. Assuming that all the tour players lose the same 15+/- yards (which is the most likely outcome) at whatever their average swing speed and driver distance is, then they'll all be hitting one more club for their second shot. Where's the increased advantage of length?
And, if courses were set up 15 yards shorter to accommodate the rolled back ball, then wouldn't all the tour players be playing approximately the same clubs as now - depending on how the roll back affects iron distances?
On the other subject of a negative AoA with the driver, where is the increased control? A negative AoA increases spin. Increased spin would accentuate any lateral dispersion caused by spin axis tilt. Increased spin would be useful for players with the skill and the desire to shape shots. But, I assumed the mantra on tour was to hit it far and straight - low spin and positive AoA is best for that.
-
Thanks Brian,
Here is what I found.
https://golf.com/gear/swing-speed-optimal-trackman-numbers-to-hit-your-drives-farther/
-
Where's the increased advantage of length?
Let's assume it's two clubs, because the second shot will be affected too. So let's say now the guy hitting 9I has to hit 7I. The guy who previously hit 7I is hitting 5I.
Is the gap between 9I (long hitter) and 7I (short hitter) bigger than the gap between 7I (long hitter) and 5I (short hitter)?
And, if courses were set up 15 yards shorter to accommodate the rolled back ball, then wouldn't all the tour players be playing approximately the same clubs as now - depending on how the roll back affects iron distances?
Why would they do that? Why go back to "it's all driver-wedge these days…" (even though it's not)?
On the other subject of a negative AoA with the driver, where is the increased control?
AoA is simply in the downward angle, so it doesn't increase spin axis tilt. It creates a larger spin loft, which is tougher to tilt. That's why it's tough(er) to slice a wedge.
A negative AoA increases spin. Increased spin would accentuate any lateral dispersion caused by spin axis tilt. Increased spin would be useful for players with the skill and the desire to shape shots. But, I assumed the mantra on tour was to hit it far and straight - low spin and positive AoA is best for that.
And yet the average is still negative for the PGA Tour driver. In part due to the above.
You can't just say "hitting down increases spin." It doesn't affect spin in all "directions" equally.
-
It seems to me that the result of this MRL will be to knock 15-20 yards off of everyone playing competitive professional golf more or less equally across the board and swill shift everyone into longer shots into the greens. I just don’t see how this doesn’t just shift the advantage even more to the longest hitters on tour, further emphasizing distance as the most important factor in the game.
You've got it… it will likely increase the emphasis (and advantage) of driving distance.
Not sure how it increases emphasis on distance or makes length more of an advantage. Assuming that all the tour players lose the same 15+/- yards (which is the most likely outcome) at whatever their average swing speed and driver distance is, then they'll all be hitting one more club for their second shot. Where's the increased advantage of length?
As approach shot distance increases from 50 yards to 200 yards, at every measured interval the scoring gap decreases. If ~60% of all par 4 approach shots are currently played from 100-180 yards, what will happen to the scoring differential if those same approach shots are moved back 15-20 additional yards? This would lead me to believe it would put a greater emphasis on mid iron and long iron approach skills.
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/XhhvzPfhzGsFIh7apL2lVBmKBFo07TeBlRrEgBsoCcG3QJb5_sd1lJ7AbJAB-kff3ehX96xV7Z2uUWZ4O_NY7P9BJVNQ10XQVA2UK7jICmgjVZEi4dAKok9pl1jkpLk9AMHNZCHxS2k=w2400)
-
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/XhhvzPfhzGsFIh7apL2lVBmKBFo07TeBlRrEgBsoCcG3QJb5_sd1lJ7AbJAB-kff3ehX96xV7Z2uUWZ4O_NY7P9BJVNQ10XQVA2UK7jICmgjVZEi4dAKok9pl1jkpLk9AMHNZCHxS2k=w2400)
One of the problems with graphs like that is that you're using the quartiles or "best" and "worst" and stuff from those ranges. You're not comparing the people who are more likely to hit those shots over the other people.
You're not comparing Dustin Johnson to Zach Johnson, basically, and moving them both back 25 yards (because they'll hit a slightly longer iron in, too).
You're also not accounting for what players will DO in the situation: you assume that everyone just loses 25 yards or some fixed percentage or something.
The problem is multivariate. And not every golfer will be affected by the variables the same way, or "solve" the problem the same way, or has the same skills.
-
I am supportive of the proposed roll-back, but--
Did you see the tee shot that Rory just hit on the 18th of the Match Play? One of the greatest shots I've ever seen in golf. Carried it onto the 18th Green over 350 yards with the match on the line. The announcers were saying that if the new rule would stop that, it shouldn't happen. It was incredible. It will be shown on replay--maybe forever.
It won’t be any less impressive if they move the tee blocks up 20 yards and he does it from 330.
This should be obvious to any reasonably intelligent human being. I'm actually slightly depressed how many people think Rory's shot (one up, one to play, no real jeopardy round the green, only needs a half to win - it's a great shot but not even in McIlroy's best 10 shots on tour) is evidence against the roll back.
-
People are tripping over themselves to find evidence against the rollback.
Ironically, I hear that Rory is secretly one of the few players in favor of it.
-
People are tripping over themselves to find evidence against the rollback.
Ironically, I hear that Rory is secretly one of the few players in favor of it.
Rory is openly in favour of the rollback.
I can understand not caring, but I fail to understand why non elite players are against rollback. Boggles the mind.
Ciao
-
Ironically, I hear that Rory is secretly one of the few players in favor of it.
It's not a secret: https://nolayingup.com/blog/mcilroy-supports-governing-bodies-distance-proposal (https://nolayingup.com/blog/mcilroy-supports-governing-bodies-distance-proposal).
I can understand not caring, but I fail to understand why non elite players are against rollback. Boggles the mind.
Because bifurcation stinks?
-
Ironically, I hear that Rory is secretly one of the few players in favor of it.
It's not a secret: https://nolayingup.com/blog/mcilroy-supports-governing-bodies-distance-proposal (https://nolayingup.com/blog/mcilroy-supports-governing-bodies-distance-proposal).
I can understand not caring, but I fail to understand why non elite players are against rollback. Boggles the mind.
Because bifurcation stinks?
Bifurcation stinks? I fully accept that elite players play a different game to the one I do where angles matter. 😎
Ciao
-
Ironically, I hear that Rory is secretly one of the few players in favor of it.
It's not a secret: https://nolayingup.com/blog/mcilroy-supports-governing-bodies-distance-proposal (https://nolayingup.com/blog/mcilroy-supports-governing-bodies-distance-proposal).
I can understand not caring, but I fail to understand why non elite players are against rollback. Boggles the mind.
Because bifurcation stinks?
It’s a good idea. It will allow courses to host tournaments without spending millions to tear them up for a week of play.
It means pros will hit a club or so more in. I think they can handle it.
Those who believe tour players are using the same equipment as mortals are in fantasyland. As all the above arguments prove.
Have a nice night, all.
-
Does anyone really believe the leadership of “tournament “ courses won’t want to make changes in their great courses??
They can’t help themselves
-
Does anyone really believe the leadership of “tournament “ courses won’t want to make changes in their great courses??
They can’t help themselves
I never bought blaming course changes on equipment. As you say, people just have to mess with stuff. It's in our nature.
Ciao
-
It’s a good idea.
Penalizes everyone just below the line.
-
It’s a good idea.
Penalizes everyone just below the line.
I'm not sure how relevant this is - but I won the 1978 Australian Amateur using a 1.68' ball. I was the only one in the field using it - and giving up the same likely yardage the ball will be rolled back in 2026. (15-25 yards)
Within 3 years the Aust Am was a 1.68' ball tournament.
This proposed change isn't anywhere near as significant as the switch from 1.62 to 1.68 - because every shot was different.
It just didn't create a fuss in the US because they weren't affected.
Now they are.
-
I'm not sure how relevant this is - but I won the 1978 Australian Amateur using a 1.68' ball. I was the only one in the field using it - and giving up the same likely yardage the ball will be rolled back in 2026. (15-25 yards)
Congrats, and… as you know, standardizing on the 1.68" ball ended bifurcation. This re-introduces it.
-
And every decent amateur thinking of turning pro would adopt the pro ball and pressure tournaments to make it mandatory.
They all would within a couple of years.
-
And every decent amateur thinking of turning pro would adopt the pro ball and pressure tournaments to make it mandatory.
They all would within a couple of years.
And eventually state and city amateurs, then club tournaments, etc.
This was the late/great Rich Goodale's theory of bifurcation quickly returning to unification.
-
Erik B. Putting the technical arguments aside, could you summarize why are you against the changes? It seems like you start with:
1. Let's have a ball that separates out the best golfers.
2. All changes favor some golfers over others.
It means all the changes over the last twenty years have favored some golfers over others too. The changes are not separating out the best golfers, but certain kinds of golfers. With every change, there is always is a new line where some are helped and some are hurt.
Later, you seem to change your mind and argue for:
1. The ball changes over the last twenty years haven't really changed much in terms of performance.
2. Whatever the ball changes, the players and equipment manufacturers will adjust and nothing will change.
3. The change is so little it won't make a difference.
I think you feel that the main problem with bifurcation is that it is bad for manufacturers of balls and equipment. Or it might be that players will have to adjust.
I think your main concern is mostly that golf will be disrupted, i.e. the status quo will change...but not much.
-
And every decent amateur thinking of turning pro would adopt the pro ball and pressure tournaments to make it mandatory.
They all would within a couple of years.
I think it will go deeper. Hence one reason the winnable bifurcation rollback makes sense. Experts say nothing will change for slow swingers, but I think everyone would be much more content testing the theory on the course when it isn't mandatory. It's hard to trust expert math when we have been told for 25 years that tech has maxed out. Once all is said and done, if the low skill amateurs who hit the ball far and dangerously wrong haven't been reigned in then this is a failed experiment. Pros whacking the shit out of the ball is a relatively minor problem in the big scheme of things.
Ciao
-
And every decent amateur thinking of turning pro would adopt the pro ball…
That doesn't change the fact that either way there's going to be some level just below wherever the line is drawn.
Let's say you're at whatever level is just below the level where they play the MLR ball. Do you play the MLR ball, willingly giving up an advantage while others have that advantage, and forego what it could mean to advancing you in your current level… in the hopes that you will even get to the next level and are beginning to prepare for life "above" the MLR line?
Let's pretend the line is just above the collegiate level. If you're a good college player, do you play the MLR ball even if you know it's going to cost you and/or your team, because you think you can make it at the next level? Does your coach allow you to willfully/willingly harm you and the team? If the difference is between winning a collegiate event or finishing T3… is that worth it? Competing for a national championship or not making it to the match play rounds? Etc.
There are no guarantees in life and the game is MUCH larger and much more competitive now than in 1978.
Erik B. Putting the technical arguments aside, could you summarize why are you against the changes?
My position all along has been: https://twitter.com/iacas/status/1637782699967479809 (https://twitter.com/iacas/status/1637782699967479809)
To get back to the original stuff:
1. I don’t think "they" needed to do anything for a tiny % of the game’s players. 6500 yards is enough for ~95%.
2. If they were going to do something, they should have gone further AND done it for everyone. Complete rollback, not bifurcation.
I've also said that IF they choose to disrupt the game, and the rules, then they'd better be damn sure they understand the ramifications and the end result. For example, it would have been silly to make a rules change and disrupt the game… if manufacturers and players could work around it in short order. A rules change with no actual consequence or, worse, unintended consequences would be "bad."
1. Let's have a ball that separates out the best golfers.
2. All changes favor some golfers over others.
Are you saying that I've said these things? Also, I don't think you can "leave out the technical side of things."
It means all the changes over the last twenty years have favored some golfers over others too. The changes are not separating out the best golfers, but certain kinds of golfers. With every change, there is always is a new line where some are helped and some are hurt.
I'm sure I've said something like this, but it's nothing close to my starting point or baseline.
1. The ball changes over the last twenty years haven't really changed much in terms of performance.
This is accurate. The modern Pro V1 (or TP5 or whatever) is a Pinnacle from the 80s that spins a bit more with shorter clubs.
2. Whatever the ball changes, the players and equipment manufacturers will adjust and nothing will change.
I don't generally use absolutes like that, so no.
3. The change is so little it won't make a difference.
It won't make a difference… to what? There are many things that it could make a difference in… but to strategy? Probably not. TO who are the best players? Probably not. To golf courses? No, probably not - it seems to be about a 4% reduction, and some pros may lose even less if they're swinging less than optimally.
I think you feel that the main problem with bifurcation is that it is bad for manufacturers of balls and equipment.
No. I don't really care about Titleist having to spend an extra $20M per year for the next three to five years… seeing as how they make about $670M on balls annually.
-
They didn't "make" $670M on balls.
-
The issue for manufacturers of balls is not just how the size of the market will be affected but more importantly how their market share might change. I suspect Titliest are the most concerned in that regard whereas others may see it as an opportunity.
Niall
-
The issue for manufacturers of balls is not just how the size of the market will be affected but more importantly how their market share might change. I suspect Titliest are the most concerned in that regard whereas others may see it as an opportunity.
Niall
I think that is why you saw Titleist immediately release a firm statement against the proposed change, and other ball manufactures have taken a less emphatic negative stance. That being said, does anyone think that Titleist won't produce a MLR ball that will will still be great and one of the tops in the industry?
-
Snell of Snell Golf Balls made an interesting point on The Fried Egg. It will cost a lot of money to produce these new balls, and manufacturers will sell none. Pros get them for free, and no one else will be buying them. The price of the balls that are sold to the public will have go up, and not a little.
-
Snell of Snell Golf Balls made an interesting point on The Fried Egg. It will cost a lot of money to produce these new balls, and manufacturers will sell none. Pros get them for free, and no one else will be buying them. The price of the balls that are sold to the public will have go up, and not a little.
I believe Mike Whan said he expects the US Am to use the new ball, which means all the qualifiers will use the new ball. That's still a pretty small market (10,000 players?), but the balls will have to be sold to the public if this is true. Also, everyone doing US Open qualifying will switch. If the new ball seeps into State Ams, Junior Ams, Mid Ams, etc, the market will grow.
I would not be shocked if every "competitive" players is using the new ball by 2030 and it accounts for ~5% of the ball market. But that all depends on who actually adopts the rules...
-
No one was probably hyperbole. But it will be a very small share of the market.
-
Snell of Snell Golf Balls made an interesting point on The Fried Egg. It will cost a lot of money to produce these new balls, and manufacturers will sell none. Pros get them for free, and no one else will be buying them. The price of the balls that are sold to the public will have go up, and not a little.
I don't buy this argument. Since day 1 of the Pro V1 Titleist has built a multitude of tour only balls that initially were not sold to the public. By my count, Titleist has made the following tour only golf balls with no direct or very limited initial public sale:- Pro V1x
- -Pro V1x
- .Pro V1
- Pro V1.
- Pro V1<>
- Pro V1*
- Pro V1+
Granted, the Pro V1x, and recently the -Pro V1x are now widely available, but the didn't start out that way.
If there is a concern on spending money to build a ball that would not be sold to the general public, then why have all the major ball manufactures been doing just that for years?
-
Exactly, Ben. It’s all PR BS.
-
I don’t think the general public believed that the Pro V1’s they were buying were appreciably different than the balls the pros played. I certainly didn’t. They were marketed as the same. But if the ball companies have had to spend serious money to make the balls that only go to the pros for free, then Snell’s argument seems specious.
-
And every decent amateur thinking of turning pro would adopt the pro ball…
That doesn't change the fact that either way there's going to be some level just below wherever the line is drawn.
Let's say you're at whatever level is just below the level where they play the MLR ball. Do you play the MLR ball, willingly giving up an advantage while others have that advantage, and forego what it could mean to advancing you in your current level… in the hopes that you will even get to the next level and are beginning to prepare for life "above" the MLR line?
Let's pretend the line is just above the collegiate level. If you're a good college player, do you play the MLR ball even if you know it's going to cost you and/or your team, because you think you can make it at the next level? Does your coach allow you to willfully/willingly harm you and the team? If the difference is between winning a collegiate event or finishing T3… is that worth it? Competing for a national championship or not making it to the match play rounds? Etc.
There are no guarantees in life and the game is MUCH larger and much more competitive now than in 1978.
Erik B. Putting the technical arguments aside, could you summarize why are you against the changes?
My position all along has been: https://twitter.com/iacas/status/1637782699967479809 (https://twitter.com/iacas/status/1637782699967479809)
To get back to the original stuff:
1. I don’t think "they" needed to do anything for a tiny % of the game’s players. 6500 yards is enough for ~95%.
2. If they were going to do something, they should have gone further AND done it for everyone. Complete rollback, not bifurcation.
I've also said that IF they choose to disrupt the game, and the rules, then they'd better be damn sure they understand the ramifications and the end result. For example, it would have been silly to make a rules change and disrupt the game… if manufacturers and players could work around it in short order. A rules change with no actual consequence or, worse, unintended consequences would be "bad."
1. Let's have a ball that separates out the best golfers.
2. All changes favor some golfers over others.
Are you saying that I've said these things? Also, I don't think you can "leave out the technical side of things."
It means all the changes over the last twenty years have favored some golfers over others too. The changes are not separating out the best golfers, but certain kinds of golfers. With every change, there is always is a new line where some are helped and some are hurt.
I'm sure I've said something like this, but it's nothing close to my starting point or baseline.
1. The ball changes over the last twenty years haven't really changed much in terms of performance.
This is accurate. The modern Pro V1 (or TP5 or whatever) is a Pinnacle from the 80s that spins a bit more with shorter clubs.
2. Whatever the ball changes, the players and equipment manufacturers will adjust and nothing will change.
I don't generally use absolutes like that, so no.
3. The change is so little it won't make a difference.
It won't make a difference… to what? There are many things that it could make a difference in… but to strategy? Probably not. TO who are the best players? Probably not. To golf courses? No, probably not - it seems to be about a 4% reduction, and some pros may lose even less if they're swinging less than optimally.
I think you feel that the main problem with bifurcation is that it is bad for manufacturers of balls and equipment.
No. I don't really care about Titleist having to spend an extra $20M per year for the next three to five years… seeing as how they make about $670M on balls annually.
Erik-You are conflating gross sales(670M) with how much they “make” or net profit. Achushnet across all product lines “made”(net profit) less than $200 million in 2022.
-
I don’t think the general public believed that the Pro V1’s they were buying were appreciably different than the balls the pros played. I certainly didn’t. They were marketed as the same. But if the ball companies have had to spend serious money to make the balls that only go to the pros for free, then Snell’s argument seems specious.
I wouldn’t think Dean Snell is going to be producing these balls anytime soon, if ever; it’s not his market at all. I take his comments to be about the “major” ball producers, and I doubt there are many people alive that have a better understanding of the production costs AND the marketplace for golf balls than Dean Snell. Snell didn’t offer a yellow ball, for instance, for quite some time after the company began, and there’s a Q&A video in which Snell explains that producing yellow golf balls is more difficult and more expensive, at least at the outset.
Long way of saying that I’d lean toward taking him at his word.
-
Snell was quite clear that the change will have little impact on his sales. He doesn’t compete against the $4 balls, other to to offer a very good ball at half the price. If anything, this could work to his advantage.
-
And every decent amateur thinking of turning pro would adopt the pro ball…
That doesn't change the fact that either way there's going to be some level just below wherever the line is drawn.
Let's say you're at whatever level is just below the level where they play the MLR ball. Do you play the MLR ball, willingly giving up an advantage while others have that advantage, and forego what it could mean to advancing you in your current level… in the hopes that you will even get to the next level and are beginning to prepare for life "above" the MLR line?
Let's pretend the line is just above the collegiate level. If you're a good college player, do you play the MLR ball even if you know it's going to cost you and/or your team, because you think you can make it at the next level? Does your coach allow you to willfully/willingly harm you and the team? If the difference is between winning a collegiate event or finishing T3… is that worth it? Competing for a national championship or not making it to the match play rounds? Etc.
There are no guarantees in life and the game is MUCH larger and much more competitive now than in 1978.
Erik B. Putting the technical arguments aside, could you summarize why are you against the changes?
My position all along has been: https://twitter.com/iacas/status/1637782699967479809 (https://twitter.com/iacas/status/1637782699967479809)
To get back to the original stuff:
1. I don’t think "they" needed to do anything for a tiny % of the game’s players. 6500 yards is enough for ~95%.
2. If they were going to do something, they should have gone further AND done it for everyone. Complete rollback, not bifurcation.
I've also said that IF they choose to disrupt the game, and the rules, then they'd better be damn sure they understand the ramifications and the end result. For example, it would have been silly to make a rules change and disrupt the game… if manufacturers and players could work around it in short order. A rules change with no actual consequence or, worse, unintended consequences would be "bad."
1. Let's have a ball that separates out the best golfers.
2. All changes favor some golfers over others.
Are you saying that I've said these things? Also, I don't think you can "leave out the technical side of things."
It means all the changes over the last twenty years have favored some golfers over others too. The changes are not separating out the best golfers, but certain kinds of golfers. With every change, there is always is a new line where some are helped and some are hurt.
I'm sure I've said something like this, but it's nothing close to my starting point or baseline.
1. The ball changes over the last twenty years haven't really changed much in terms of performance.
This is accurate. The modern Pro V1 (or TP5 or whatever) is a Pinnacle from the 80s that spins a bit more with shorter clubs.
2. Whatever the ball changes, the players and equipment manufacturers will adjust and nothing will change.
I don't generally use absolutes like that, so no.
3. The change is so little it won't make a difference.
It won't make a difference… to what? There are many things that it could make a difference in… but to strategy? Probably not. TO who are the best players? Probably not. To golf courses? No, probably not - it seems to be about a 4% reduction, and some pros may lose even less if they're swinging less than optimally.
I think you feel that the main problem with bifurcation is that it is bad for manufacturers of balls and equipment.
No. I don't really care about Titleist having to spend an extra $20M per year for the next three to five years… seeing as how they make about $670M on balls annually.
Erik-You are conflating gross sales(670M) with how much they “make” or net profit. Achushnet across all product lines “made”(net profit) less than $200 million in 2022.
Tim, Can't be, Erik has never been wrong.
-
I don't buy this argument. Since day 1 of the Pro V1 Titleist has built a multitude of tour only balls that initially were not sold to the public.
Those are also only small variations from the main versions. Slightly different formulations, or whatever. Not an entirely separate production line and design limitations, etc.
Erik-You are conflating gross sales(670M) with how much they “make” or net profit. Achushnet across all product lines “made”(net profit) less than $200 million in 2022.
I didn't conflate the two. I used "make" to mean "revenue." Ball sales were about $670M in the one year I looked and over $1.1B over two years.
The word "make" is probably better used to say "profit" and not "revenue," I'll grant you that, but it's used to describe both. On Friday, the bakery in our building "made" the most they'd ever "made" in a day, and while I won't tell you what the figure was, the owner wasn't deducting all expenses (rent, cost of ingredients and labor and insurance, etc.) in telling me that number. :P
-
I don't buy this argument. Since day 1 of the Pro V1 Titleist has built a multitude of tour only balls that initially were not sold to the public.
Those are also only small variations from the main versions. Slightly different formulations, or whatever. Not an entirely separate production line and design limitations, etc.
Erik-You are conflating gross sales(670M) with how much they “make” or net profit. Achushnet across all product lines “made”(net profit) less than $200 million in 2022.
I didn't conflate the two. I used "make" to mean "revenue." Ball sales were about $670M in the one year I looked and over $1.1B over two years.
The word "make" is probably better used to say "profit" and not "revenue," I'll grant you that, but it's used to describe both. On Friday, the bakery in our building "made" the most they'd ever "made" in a day, and while I won't tell you what the figure was, the owner wasn't deducting all expenses (rent, cost of ingredients and labor and insurance, etc.) in telling me that number. :P
Like Rob said.
-
Like Rob said.
Way to further the conversation.
-
Like Rob said.
Way to further the conversation.
Thanks!
-
Truly amazing.
-
Truly amazing.
How little you offer to the discussion while constantly trolling? I agree. I've been wrong plenty, Rob (just ask my wife ;D ), and will admit as much when I am. But on matters of opinion, there's no right/wrong. There's just… a difference of opinion.
I generally stick to the topics, you generally engage in personal commentary. Cool beans, man, and whatever floats your boat. Just make sure, when someone asks you what you make a year, that you deduct taxes, standard deductions, dependents… whatever. :P Cuz that number only ever means "profit," apparently. Or, at least only ever does when I use it to clearly mean revenue.
=========
To the actual topic:
https://mygolfspy.com/dean-snell-on-usga-ra-the-proposed-golf-ball-rollback/ (https://mygolfspy.com/dean-snell-on-usga-ra-the-proposed-golf-ball-rollback/)
“It’s gone from stagnant and a little bland to a lot more interesting,” he says. “The same guys don’t win every week. One week it’s an athletic guy who wins with his distance, the next week, it’s a guy with his putting and wedge play. Doesn’t change our game when we go out and play, but for me, it’s entertaining and more fun to watch.”
Not sure I agree there, but okay.
“It could be,” Snell shrugs. “I appreciate architectural people saying a shorter ball brings back angles and maybe how a designer intended a course to play, but that doesn’t show well on television. Players are the product; courses are the arenas.”
Uh oh! ;D
That said, he still considers the MLR “bifurcation” even if thinly disguised as a choice rather than a mandate. “I’ll always believe one set of rules is best for the game,” he says.
Bifurcation stinks. Roll it back for everyone or leave it the same for everyone.
“Sounds simple to say, hey, let’s go make balls 15-20 yards shorter, but it’s not,” Snell says. “There’s a trickle-down of build problems that require step-by-step, layer-by-layer solutions for R&D. All of the things you put into the design of a golf ball don’t only relate to the driver. They relate to total performance tee to green. Every aspect of the game changes.”
It's not as simple as "oh, just re-make that ball" or "oh, you probably already have a design to do this, so just do that."
“Every company will have to look at different core designs, changing mantle layers, different covers that create more spin or designing to solve the problem with dimple pattern. Doing this strictly on an aerodynamic basis would be tough. You’d have to design some crazy dimples to get to the speed and spin rate they want to test at,” he adds.
…
“The golf ball hasn’t gotten faster,” he contends. “Back in 1990, 160 mph was tour ball speed with Tour Balata. Now it’s 185 -190 mph. Some guys can get it to 200. Any distance issue is a combination of player, driver, shorter, harder fairways, and ball flight being higher. That’s the reality.”
-
All I did was point out your post was wrong. Tim also pointed it out. Simple as that. Have a great day Erik.
-
All I did was point out your post was wrong. Tim also pointed it out. Simple as that. Have a great day Erik.
I was wrong… to engage with you. My ignore list started with you, IIRC, and though I wish it worked properly, it doesn't. Typically, I use the little text above your posts as a reminder to do as it says and ignore you. I will double my efforts on that front. Thank you for reminding me, and for saving me all that time in the future.
-
All I did was point out your post was wrong. Tim also pointed it out. Simple as that. Have a great day Erik.
I was wrong… to engage with you. My ignore list started with you, IIRC, and though I wish it worked properly, it doesn't. Typically, I use the little text above your posts as a reminder to do as it says and ignore you. I will double my efforts on that front. Thank you for reminding me, and for saving me all that time in the future.
Erik-Let’s be honest. It’s not in your DNA to ignore comments that come your way or let anyone have the last word EVER. ::) What’s the name of your website? It’s the Snark Trap right?
-
All I did was point out your post was wrong. Tim also pointed it out. Simple as that. Have a great day Erik.
I was wrong… to engage with you. My ignore list started with you, IIRC, and though I wish it worked properly, it doesn't. Typically, I use the little text above your posts as a reminder to do as it says and ignore you. I will double my efforts on that front. Thank you for reminding me, and for saving me all that time in the future.
Wow Erik
I thought I was good at pissing people off haha
For what it’s worth
Spot on on the various pro v1 approved balls. A lot of them are previous years’ models that guys are hesitant to change from due to small changes making huge impacts on some players throughout the bag.
And I “make” $150 per lesson. ;D
-
Wow Erik
I thought I was good at pissing people off haha
You won't ever piss me off, nor have they, Pat. This stuff is just golf. Even though I spend 80-100 hours a week on it… it's just golf. ;) Disagreement isn't anger. You can like vanilla while I like chocolate marshmallow.
For what it’s worth - Spot on on the various pro v1 approved balls. A lot of them are previous years’ models that guys are hesitant to change from due to small changes making huge impacts on some players throughout the bag.
And I “make” $150 per lesson. ;D
It's crazy how sensitive guys are to stuff. I don't think he still is, but I know last year one guy was still playing the 2017 version of a ball… because he "liked" it.
I read an article about Tiger testing out some Bridgestones, and he could tell the difference on short game shots in a little bit of spin here and there.
The idea that guys will/can fully adjust to a "new ball" in a few days is pure folly. They spend weeks in the off-season getting used to a new ball, or testing various ball models, etc.
I hope the disruption this will cause is "worth it." I'd have rather seen them, as I've said, go a bit farther (maybe 8%) and not make it bifurcation.
-
Spot on on the various pro v1 approved balls. A lot of them are previous years’ models that guys are hesitant to change from due to small changes making huge impacts on some players throughout the bag.
None of the Pro V1 variants I listed were re-badged previous years models, but unique variants created to fill a suspected need among the tour staff. Read up on the Pro V1 Star for example, The profile of that ball is very unique and an extreme for the Pro V1 line up. Titleist still stocks quite a few previous year versions for their tour staff but they just badge them based on the year (i.e. "2017 Pro V1")
I suppose that if you believe that the Pro V1 is just a Pinnacle with a soft cover, it makes sense to believe all variants of the Pro V1 are just small changes. When you take a look "under the hood" there are noticeable differences between the layers that suggest the changes from ball to ball are more significant.
-
I suppose that if you believe that the Pro V1 is just a Pinnacle with a soft cover
That's a mischaracterization of what I've said. The point of that is to say that we've always had balls that go far; pros just didn't play with them until they figured out how to make them spin with the short irons.
-
I'm surprised to have not seen any commentary on Mark Broadie's most recent white paper Impact of Distance Changes in Professional Golf, With a Focus on the ShotLink Era (https://deliverypdf.ssrn.com/delivery.php?ID=935027064086090004087096085084127100038012072004010029087019077093006068071116072067106096003126050111125090077093121023107083019022087003054114016099070062028046068089116117023077089017113027123086020001125086094112028002006094089024006125&EXT=pdf&INDEX=TRUE)
A few bullet points from the study, but the TLDR:
While the importance of every other category has fallen, the importance of driving has increased over the last two decades
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/I9WSD2nxKda9e0Rk93x7VEJUBm6xJEtZUlqAs6CH5dWj5TOwgqHXJW0taIHD3baGmsxtlL15rh6BlQJ3akteStEJUr1SbwyVVn-BvWlg-R1L9942Ifz_B2Nk2PV0hQOui0PfuzOAFd4=w2400)
Scoring and breakdown by shot category over the period 2006-2022
Round score and course yardage trends
• Round scores declined at a rate of 0.43 strokes per decade
• Average actual yardage increased at a rate of 40 yards per decade
• Yardage increase slowed round score decrease by 0.17 strokes per decade
• Round scores at the same yardage would have declined 0.60 strokes per decade
Decomposition of constant-yardage score trends by shot category
• Round scores: −0.60 strokes per decade
• Driving: −0.26 strokes per decade
• Non-driving shots: −0.34 strokes per decade (approach: −0.18 strokes per decade; short game: 0.02 strokes per decade; putting: −0.18 strokes per decade)
Scoring advantage of top players by shot category over the period 2006-2022
Top 40 SG total players scoring advantage over the period 2006-2022
• Driving accounts for 28% of the scoring advantage of the top players
• Approach shot accounts for 36% of the scoring advantage of the top players
• Short game and putting accounts for 36% of the scoring advantage of the top players
• Round scores at the same yardage would have declined 0.60 strokes per decade
Trends in the scoring advantage of the top 40 SG total players
• The scoring advantage due to driving has increased by 4.5% per decade (and is statistically significant)
• The scoring advantage due to approach shots has decreased by 2.4% per decade (and is statistically significant)
• The scoring advantage due to short game and putting has decreased slightly (and neither is statistically significant)
-
I suppose that if you believe that the Pro V1 is just a Pinnacle with a soft cover
That's a mischaracterization of what I've said. The point of that is to say that we've always had balls that go far; pros just didn't play with them until they figured out how to make them spin with the short irons.
My apologies, let me provide the quote so you can better clarify you position.
they put a soft cover on a Pinnacle (solid) core. That was the breakthrough in the Pro V1
-
Rory made some interesting comments in response to the MLR, I am most intrigued by his comment about the potential for split adoption of the ball between the majors and the PGA Tour, From a blog post at No Laying Up (https://nolayingup.com/blog/mcilroy-supports-governing-bodies-distance-proposal)
“I think my opinion differs from my peers, and probably the PGA Tour as a whole,” McIlroy said. “And obviously, look, this is just my opinion and I'm only one voice. But honestly, if I'm taking my PGA Tour hat off here, the major championships are already such a big deal in the game of golf, and if the major championships somehow adopt this ball change, and the PGA Tour doesn't, I think it widens that gap between PGA Tour golf and major championship golf. Which, if anything, the PGA Tour is trying to make up some sort of market share, or trying to get a little closer to the major championships in terms of the interest that we create within our tournaments.”
“Honestly, for me, the major championships are the biggest deal, so if the PGA Tour doesn't implement it, I might still play the Model Local Rule ball, because I know that that'll give me the best chance and the best preparation leading into the major championships,” McIlroy said. “And again, this is personal preference and personal opinion at this stage of my career. I know that I'm gonna be defined by the amount of major championships that I hopefully will win from now until the end of my career. And that's the most important thing for me."
“If that gives me the best chance to succeed at the major championships and feel as prepared as I possibly can be, then that's what I would do.”
-
My apologies, let me provide the quote so you can better clarify you position.
I already did. And have been saying this for like 20 years. You can probably go find a post on Geoff Shackelford's site where I've been saying the longer versions of this… which I've since reduced to the shorthand version.
The ball has always (legally) gone a long way. Prior to 1999 or so, pros played balata or Professionals (etc.) because they wanted the spin. The Pro V1 (and its ilk) was basically just the companies figuring out how to make a Pinnacle spin the way the pros wanted.
The ball has always (legally) gone pretty far.
-
While the importance of every other category has fallen, the importance of driving has increased over the last two decades
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/I9WSD2nxKda9e0Rk93x7VEJUBm6xJEtZUlqAs6CH5dWj5TOwgqHXJW0taIHD3baGmsxtlL15rh6BlQJ3akteStEJUr1SbwyVVn-BvWlg-R1L9942Ifz_B2Nk2PV0hQOui0PfuzOAFd4=w2400)
Ben,
Interesting break down. A few years back I took a look at the results of the 2018-2019 Season of the PGA Tour.
I looked at all the winners for the year and correlated their relative season rank in the following 5 categories: Driving Distance, GIR, Driving Accuracy, Scrambling, and Putting.
Not surprisingly the one category that correlated the best to predicting winning was Driving Distance In that season, 52.4 % of winners on Tour came from players who were in the top 25% of the rankings. Driving Accuracy correlated the worst at less than 1 in 5 at 19%. GIR was second at 40.5%, Scrambling and Putting at 33% and 24% respectively.
P.S. Furthermore, 76.2% of the winners were in the top 50% of Driving Distance in the rankings. And i'm guessing if I did the same analysis for last year it would be even higher.
-
Not surprisingly the one category that correlated the best to predicting winning was Driving Distance In that season, 52.4 % of winners on Tour came from players who were in the top 25% of the rankings. Driving Accuracy correlated the worst at less than 1 in 5 at 19%. GIR was second at 40.5%, Scrambling and Putting at 33% and 24% respectively.
• Driving accounts for 28% of the scoring advantage of the top players• Approach shot accounts for 36% of the scoring advantage of the top players• Short game and putting accounts for 36% of the scoring advantage of the top players
Approach shots are still where better players separate themselves the most. It's shifted a little since ESC was published, but… even then it was nearly the same. And, it's odd, but it's pretty close to those same numbers (~ 28%, 39%, 19%, 14%) across the board, comparing any group of golfers to any other group. Even 90s shooters to +3 handicaps.
-
The reason this rule has been proposed has nothing to do with reducing the advantage longer hitters enjoy. One would think that, on this cite in particular, the reason for the rule change would be celebrated. The rule has been proposed to keep the great old courses from becoming obsolete.
-
The reason this rule has been proposed has nothing to do with reducing the advantage longer hitters enjoy. One would think that, on this cite in particular, the reason for the rule change would be celebrated. The rule has been proposed to keep the great old courses from becoming obsolete.
They said this:
The USGA and The R&A set out to address the long-term trend of increased hitting distances and course lengthening that they believe threatens golf’s long-term sustainability and undermines the core principle that a broad and balanced set of playing skills should remain the primary determinant of success in golf.
"Keeping great old courses from becoming obsolete" may be on the list, but it isn't one of the top two (stated) goals.
The sustainability angle is the best angle, IMO, for approaching this. As we all know, the angle you take on something like this matters. ;)
-
Hey, "Last Word" Barzeski if I recall Ukraine had something like 20,000 nuclear missiles at the time the Soviet Union was broken up. Part of the deal (Salt I ?) was the destruction of those nukes. Imagine if they still had those nukes! Whew! They'd be lobbing them into Red Square!
But I digress....How about every club and ball manufactured after 2005 has be be turned in to your local pro shop where they will be destroyed. You will, of course, be compensated for what will now be illegal equipment.
I like this idea. Declare this equipment "non conforming" and destroy it! Make the golf course a safer place for maintenance workers, folks in adjoining fairways, and golf course architects!
-
Wow Erik
I thought I was good at pissing people off haha
You won't ever piss me off, nor have they, Pat. This stuff is just golf. Even though I spend 80-100 hours a week on it… it's just golf. ;) Disagreement isn't anger. You can like vanilla while I like chocolate marshmallow.
For what it’s worth - Spot on on the various pro v1 approved balls. A lot of them are previous years’ models that guys are hesitant to change from due to small changes making huge impacts on some players throughout the bag.
And I “make” $150 per lesson. ;D
It's crazy how sensitive guys are to stuff. I don't think he still is, but I know last year one guy was still playing the 2017 version of a ball… because he "liked" it.
I read an article about Tiger testing out some Bridgestones, and he could tell the difference on short game shots in a little bit of spin here and there.
The idea that guys will/can fully adjust to a "new ball" in a few days is pure folly. They spend weeks in the off-season getting used to a new ball, or testing various ball models, etc.
I hope the disruption this will cause is "worth it." I'd have rather seen them, as I've said, go a bit farther (maybe 8%) and not make it bifurcation.
I am not convinced the USGA /R&A thought it could win the public opinion debate with a mandatory rollback. They have rolled out an idea which they think will be successful with public opinion. I don't believe this rollback goes anywhere near far enough to achieve their stated goals. However, it may temporarily hault the long ball process and provide time to win the further pr battle of deeper rollbacks after the public is convinced that only the long ball hitters are truly effected. It's a risky approach, but I think the only approach the USGA/R&A thought viable. Honestly, something like 17% drive length reduction and far smaller drivers is the real target if we are taking sustainability, safety and classic course preservation seriously. This would make 275 a long average and the odd outlier another 10 or so yards longer on average, just as it was just before Tiger started.
Ciao
-
The reason this rule has been proposed has nothing to do with reducing the advantage longer hitters enjoy. One would think that, on this cite in particular, the reason for the rule change would be celebrated. The rule has been proposed to keep the great old courses from becoming obsolete.
Jim
With respect, the courses aren't obsolete. It's just that we keep using scores as a benchmark and assume that because course records keep getting lower that somehow the courses are getting worse. And just because Rory/Cam play the courses differently than Jack/Arnie doesn't mean they are obsolete either. Jack and Arnie played them differently than Hogan who played them differently than Vardon/Braid who played them differently than Old Tom and so on.
Niall
-
Well, maybe obsolete is the wrong word. Less challenging, maybe? Less interesting? And remember, this only applies to the top 1% (or less) of players. Not the rest of us.
-
The reason this rule has been proposed has nothing to do with reducing the advantage longer hitters enjoy. One would think that, on this cite in particular, the reason for the rule change would be celebrated. The rule has been proposed to keep the great old courses from becoming obsolete.
Jim
With respect, the courses aren't obsolete. It's just that we keep using scores as a benchmark and assume that because course records keep getting lower that somehow the courses are getting worse. And just because Rory/Cam play the courses differently than Jack/Arnie doesn't mean they are obsolete either. Jack and Arnie played them differently than Hogan who played them differently than Vardon/Braid who played them differently than Old Tom and so on.
Niall
Niall-I agree the courses aren’t obsolete for 99% of players. They are or are becoming obsolete for the 1% that the USGA is targeting with the proposed rollback. For those that oppose the change what is the fix for elite players at the highest level of the game or should the USGA just look the other way? I don’t believe that a par four hole that played driver/5 iron thirty years ago and now plays driver/wedge is good for golf. From a spectators perspective at least for me driver/wedge is a snore fest and the primary reason why I’ve lost interest in watching the weekly PGA Tour events.
-
Based on Brodie's study, at the turn of the century, driving was the lowest ranked factor in relationship to scoring advantage.
If allowed to progress unchecked, by 2034 driving will become the highest ranked factor in relationship to scoring advantage.
-
Based on Brodie's study, at the turn of the century, driving was the lowest ranked factor in relationship to scoring advantage.
If allowed to progress unchecked, by 2034 driving will become the highest ranked factor in relationship to scoring advantage.
Without digging out my copy and searching, can you post the data from Broadie that supports the idea that driving was wasn’t especially important “at the turn of the century”? (And I’m assuming you must mean 1900 rather than 2000? 1900 would be a pretty difficult study in the absence of Shotlink, which is the statistical basis for Broadie’s work.)
I’ve read Broadie pretty carefully, and I do not remember any such data from him. But I’m old, and my memory sometimes fails me; perhaps this is another of those times.
-
A.G.
By turn of the century I'm speaking of 23 years ago!
I posted a link to the study in question earlier in this thread:
I'm surprised to have not seen any commentary on Mark Broadie's most recent white paper Impact of Distance Changes in Professional Golf, With a Focus on the ShotLink Era (https://deliverypdf.ssrn.com/delivery.php?ID=935027064086090004087096085084127100038012072004010029087019077093006068071116072067106096003126050111125090077093121023107083019022087003054114016099070062028046068089116117023077089017113027123086020001125086094112028002006094089024006125&EXT=pdf&INDEX=TRUE)
-
Interesting comment relating to modern technology from Andy Staples in an article by Tony Dear, "Like it does so beautifully at Augusta National where the putative draw bias will come under fire this year with so many of the world's best players relying heavily on a fade from the tee. 'The fade is a more popular shot now because it travels just as far as a draw with today's equipment, and it's more dependable,' says Staples. Is this an area where modern equipment has simplified shotmaking expertise and decision for the best players? I suppose a mountain of data could be offered to obscure what seems obvious here too.
-
Interesting comment relating to modern technology from Andy Staples in an article by Tony Dear, "Like it does so beautifully at Augusta National where the putative draw bias will come under fire this year with so many of the world's best players relying heavily on a fade from the tee. 'The fade is a more popular shot now because it travels just as far as a draw with today's equipment, and it's more dependable,' says Staples. Is this an area where modern equipment has simplified shotmaking expertise and decision for the best players? I suppose a mountain of data could be offered to obscure what seems obvious here too.
As Scheffler said, when he tries to hit a draw with a driver, the ball has so little spin that it won't stay in the air.
I know, John VdB still thinks it's a bad idea, but I would love to see what happened if the ball was reduced to a weight between the "balloon ball" of 1931 (1.55 oz.) and the modern ball (1.62 oz.).
I've read his essay several times, and think that most of the objections, would be covered by the solid core balls of today, and a lighter ball would certainly curve more. It would also be easier to keep in the air, which would help shorter hitters like seniors and women.
-
The reason this rule has been proposed has nothing to do with reducing the advantage longer hitters enjoy. One would think that, on this cite in particular, the reason for the rule change would be celebrated. The rule has been proposed to keep the great old courses from becoming obsolete.
They said this:
The USGA and The R&A set out to address the long-term trend of increased hitting distances and course lengthening that they believe threatens golf’s long-term sustainability and undermines the core principle that a broad and balanced set of playing skills should remain the primary determinant of success in golf.
"Keeping great old courses from becoming obsolete" may be on the list, but it isn't one of the top two (stated) goals.
Erik--
It is an obvious corollary to the sustainability goal. Championship courses adding tee boxes and making other setup/architectural compromises in order to challenge the pros as the equipment makes them longer and longer is absolutely an issue of sustainability, not just environmental but financial and practical.
-
A.G.
By turn of the century I'm speaking of 23 years ago!
I posted a link to the study in question earlier in this thread:
I'm surprised to have not seen any commentary on Mark Broadie's most recent white paper Impact of Distance Changes in Professional Golf, With a Focus on the ShotLink Era (https://deliverypdf.ssrn.com/delivery.php?ID=935027064086090004087096085084127100038012072004010029087019077093006068071116072067106096003126050111125090077093121023107083019022087003054114016099070062028046068089116117023077089017113027123086020001125086094112028002006094089024006125&EXT=pdf&INDEX=TRUE)
Ben, it would be better by far if you had been talking about 1900, since in that case nobody could prove you wrong.
To say that you are misinterpreting the conclusions Broadie's paper would be a vast understatement. I'm not going argue it with you, and anyone else who wishes to can read the paper for themselves.
-
Ben, it would be better by far if you had been talking about 1900, since in that case nobody could prove you wrong.
To say that you are misinterpreting the conclusions Broadie's paper would be a vast understatement. I'm not going argue it with you, and anyone else who wishes to can read the paper for themselves.
I beg your pardon? Let's look at exactly what Broadie wrote.
From page 11:
"Table 2 shows that, on average, the top 40 players in a season (ranked by SG total) gain 28% of their scoring advantage
from driving. This value has been increasing at a rate of 4.5% per decade and is statistically significant with a p-value of 0%. The contribution of approach shots has decreased at a rate of 2.4% per decade. The contribution of putting is effectively unchanged."
From Table 2:
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/iV4NaJcKTLRjKrXhGR1N2twm8EJ4_pBCv3sWxYQf4nvcM5CYmOudflIpCrLFVYS2GHDRhuHFNhIB7SR5EERQ0njE1Gg2C9MmI6HZJtWlrXmoNtc3PuRBrKipcAMgHqnurfNIopTBR1k=w2400)
Based upon the current averages and the change per decade Broadie provided, we can extrapolate that 20 years ago the scoring advantages per shot category would have looked something like this:
- Drive: 19%
- Approach: 40.8%
- Short: 20.2%
- Putt: 20.2%
While Broadie assigned a linear slope to the trend per decade, both in Table 2 and Figure 15,
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/I9WSD2nxKda9e0Rk93x7VEJUBm6xJEtZUlqAs6CH5dWj5TOwgqHXJW0taIHD3baGmsxtlL15rh6BlQJ3akteStEJUr1SbwyVVn-BvWlg-R1L9942Ifz_B2Nk2PV0hQOui0PfuzOAFd4=w2400)
Figure 15 also illustrates that the relationship is not perfect linear within each decade, the crossover point may not have been perfectly 20 years ago, thus why I used the phrase "turn of the century" to speak to a potential collection of years in which the crossover may have occurred. If this is where you believe my "vast understatement" took place, so be it.
-
But I digress.
I'll say.
I am not convinced the USGA /R&A thought it could win the public opinion debate with a mandatory rollback.
I almost wonder if the manufacturers will push for a mandatory rollback. That way they can continue to sell the same balls to all levels of golf and use the Tour players for marketing purposes as always. I wonder if they won't push that a little in the commentary period.
I don't believe this rollback goes anywhere near far enough to achieve their stated goals.
I agree that 4% or so is not enough. It's a disruption without much gain. Not worth it.
Honestly, something like 17% drive length reduction
No. Rory going from 320.6 to leading the Tour at 271, no.
This would make 275 a long average and the odd outlier another 10 or so yards longer on average, just as it was just before Tiger started.
No, the Tour leader isn't even averaging 275 in your scenario.
-
This might be of interest. Or maybe not!
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=j66SJgDt7Gg (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=j66SJgDt7Gg)
Filmed 3 yrs ago so tech may well have moved on since then.
Atb
-
Ben, it would be better by far if you had been talking about 1900, since in that case nobody could prove you wrong.
To say that you are misinterpreting the conclusions Broadie's paper would be a vast understatement. I'm not going argue it with you, and anyone else who wishes to can read the paper for themselves.
I beg your pardon? Let's look at exactly what Broadie wrote.
From page 11:
"Table 2 shows that, on average, the top 40 players in a season (ranked by SG total) gain 28% of their scoring advantage
from driving. This value has been increasing at a rate of 4.5% per decade and is statistically significant with a p-value of 0%. The contribution of approach shots has decreased at a rate of 2.4% per decade. The contribution of putting is effectively unchanged."
From Table 2:
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/iV4NaJcKTLRjKrXhGR1N2twm8EJ4_pBCv3sWxYQf4nvcM5CYmOudflIpCrLFVYS2GHDRhuHFNhIB7SR5EERQ0njE1Gg2C9MmI6HZJtWlrXmoNtc3PuRBrKipcAMgHqnurfNIopTBR1k=w2400)
Based upon the current averages and the change per decade Broadie provided, we can extrapolate that 20 years ago the scoring advantages per shot category would have looked something like this:
- Drive: 19%
- Approach: 40.8%
- Short: 20.2%
- Putt: 20.2%
While Broadie assigned a linear slope to the trend per decade, both in Table 2 and Figure 15,
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/I9WSD2nxKda9e0Rk93x7VEJUBm6xJEtZUlqAs6CH5dWj5TOwgqHXJW0taIHD3baGmsxtlL15rh6BlQJ3akteStEJUr1SbwyVVn-BvWlg-R1L9942Ifz_B2Nk2PV0hQOui0PfuzOAFd4=w2400)
Figure 15 also illustrates that the relationship is not perfect linear within each decade, the crossover point may not have been perfectly 20 years ago, thus why I used the phrase "turn of the century" to speak to a potential collection of years in which the crossover may have occurred. If this is where you believe my "vast understatement" took place, so be it.
1. It is important to note that Broadie's paper is about the top 40 in SG only, rather than about ALL Tour pros.
2. You are on solid ground when you say that over a bit less than the last two decades, driving has become more important to the top 40 players, though it remains significantly less important than approach, which you ignore.
3. The ground becomes somewhat shaky when you say that at "the turn of the century" driving was the least important of the four categories. Not to quibble, but at the beginning of Broadie's study, driving and putting were essentially the same for the top 40, both FAR behind approach, with short game somewhere in the middle. Perhaps a more accurate way of characterizing the situation in 2006 would have been to say that approach was king for the top 40 pros, and while it still is, driving has become increasingly important, too.
4. The ground becomes quicksand when you say (in the previous post) that "If allowed to progress unchecked, by 2034 driving will become the highest ranked factor in relationship to scoring advantage." That is, 100%, YOUR conclusion, and not that of Mark Broadie. Broadie is always analytical and descriptive, never prescriptive or predictive, and he points out that driving increases are a multi-factoral situation. Technology, technique, agronomy, longer courses, younger and taller golfers all are analyzed as contributing factors to improved driving among the top 40 pros. One could just as easily conclude that at least some of those other factors won't continue to change in a way that increases driving distance between now and 2034, but again, that's predictive, and that's NOT what Broadie is doing. You've done a VERY simple math problem based solely on trends less than two decades, and used it to "predict" what might happen in the next decade, when there is actually ZERO evidence for that.
5. Most significantly of all, you seem (at least to me) to be using all this as a defense of the proposed local rule concerning the golf ball. Interestingly, Broadie doesn't get into the role of the golf ball in this paper; my guess, and it's ONLY that, is because that's the ONE thing about driving that has NOT really changed much since 2006. Tiger had won at Pebble in 2000 with the new Nike ball, the ProV1 became available to pros later that year, and to the public before the end of 2000. By 2006, everybody on Tour was using a multi-layer solid core ball with a urethane cover and had been for years.
Whether you are misinterpreting or misusing Broadie's data, the result is the same.
-
4. The ground becomes quicksand when you say (in the previous post) that "If allowed to progress unchecked, by 2034 driving will become the highest ranked factor in relationship to scoring advantage." That is, 100%, YOUR conclusion, and not that of Mark Broadie.
A. G.
Where did I claim that it was anything other than my forecast?
My original comment, that you take such offense with, only referenced Broadie's study to define the previous balance in scoring advantage.
-
AG,
I think the point around the top 40 is a fair one in a vacuum.
However when you consider the top 40 are going to be fully exempt on Tour, auto qualify into all the majors, get invites to the Invitationals. reap massive financial rewards in both endorsements and high finishes, media attention and publicity, etc...its pretty easy for the next 100-150 players (and even other aspiring non-pros) to deduce what can I do and how should I spend my time to get there. Its a classic 80s era arms-race
In that context I agree completely with Ben's take and even in your inference of "if things remain unchecked"
-
AG,
I think the point around the top 40 is a fair one in a vacuum.
However when you consider the top 40 are going to be fully exempt on Tour, auto qualify into all the majors, get invites to the Invitationals. reap massive financial rewards in both endorsements and high finishes, media attention and publicity, etc...its pretty easy for the next 100-150 players (and even other aspiring non-pros) to deduce what can I do and how should I spend my time to get there. Its a classic 80s era arms-race
In that context I agree completely with Ben's take and even in your inference of "if things remain unchecked"
Kalen,
All well and good, and you MAY be 100% right on all counts. For my part, I’ll continue to not only love reading Mark Broadie’s work, but object to it being used to forecast, when that forecast is simply using the data to support a preexisting opinion.
To wit, Broadie’s driving distance data isn’t about the golf ball, yet his data is being used here to support a rule about the golf ball. That’s poor logic, and not “science” at all.
We all have our opinions about this. Just give it, along with pertinent facts. Broadie’s paper isn’t that.
-
To wit, Broadie’s driving distance data isn’t about the golf ball, yet his data is being used here to support a rule about the golf ball. That’s poor logic, and not “science” at all.
This is the nut, here, yes. Broadie's work had almost nothing to do with the golf ball.
-
To wit, Broadie’s driving distance data isn’t about the golf ball, yet his data is being used here to support a rule about the golf ball. That’s poor logic, and not “science” at all.
A.G.
For someone who said they didn’t want to argue, you sure are lobbing a lot of shots.
Please point out, specifically, where I directly referenced Brodie’s study on driving distance in connection with the golf ball.
You keep making inferences that are clearly riling you up, that simply are not accurate. I can appreciate that you worship at the church of Broadie and want to support his work. But when you read something that you may not agree with or understand, rather than being rude and insulting, have you considered asking clarifying questions? This entire exchange could have potentially been fruitful if you had not started on the defensive.
-
To wit, Broadie’s driving distance data isn’t about the golf ball, yet his data is being used here to support a rule about the golf ball. That’s poor logic, and not “science” at all.
A.G.
For someone who said they didn’t want to argue, you sure are lobbing a lot of shots.
Please point out, specifically, where I directly referenced Brodie’s study on driving distance in connection with the golf ball.
You keep making inferences that are clearly riling you up, that simply are not accurate. I can appreciate that you worship at the church of Broadie and want to support his work. But when you read something that you may not agree with or understand, rather than being rude and insulting, have you considered asking clarifying questions? This entire exchange could have potentially been fruitful if you had not started on the defensive.
I didn’t reference Mark Broadie; you did. And you did it in support of a proposed local rule ABOUT THE GOLF BALL. The Broadie study you cited in support of that position is about all aspects of driving distance EXCEPT the golf ball, possibly because it’s the one thing that has NOT changed about the top 40 players since 2006.
I didn’t misunderstand Broadie’s work, nor am I misrepresenting it. If that constitutes worshipping at “the church of Broadie”, then guilty as charged, and I DO truly admire his work. Enough so that I think I try to reference his work in an accurate and useful manner.
-
I didn’t reference Mark Broadie; you did. And you did it in support of a proposed local rule ABOUT THE GOLF BALL. The Broadie study you cited in support of that position is about all aspects of driving distance EXCEPT the golf ball, possibly because it’s the one thing that has NOT changed about the top 40 players since 2006.
I introduced this study to the discussion because it is topical. I was hoping it would spur substantive conversation, but clearly I was wrong. The only two people who have made direct references between Broadie and the golf ball in this discussion have been you and Erik. Go back and re-read the posts and then you might understand the poor inferences you're making.
For what it's worth, I'll leave this quote for you, from the Introduction section of Broadie's study. Hopefully it help to illuminate Broadie's intentions as it relates to the bolded portion of your comment above:
"The most comprehensive study of distance in golf is R&A and USGA (2020b). This 102-page
report by the Royal and Ancient (R&A) and the United States Golf Association (USGA) reflects
the work of 56 separate reports. Extensive data is provided on driving distance, course length, water
usage, stakeholder opinion research and more. The conclusions from this work are summarized in
R&A and USGA (2020a). Though extensive, there are still many open questions about the impact
of driving distance and other skills on performance in golf. This paper examines the contributions
of driving distance and other skills (approach shots, short game shots and putting) to success on
the PGA Tour."
-
rather than being rude and insulting
Right out of the "I disagree but I can't just say that and why" playbook: just attack the person with opinions about how you took their plain text. Counterpoint: nothing AG said was "rude and insulting."
The only two people who have made direct references between Broadie and the golf ball in this discussion have been you and Erik.
That's inaccurate. This whole discussion is about the MLR ball… and you are the one who brought up the Broadie study.
-
My apologies, let me provide the quote so you can better clarify you position.
I already did. And have been saying this for like 20 years. You can probably go find a post on Geoff Shackelford's site where I've been saying the longer versions of this… which I've since reduced to the shorthand version.
The ball has always (legally) gone a long way. Prior to 1999 or so, pros played balata or Professionals (etc.) because they wanted the spin. The Pro V1 (and its ilk) was basically just the companies figuring out how to make a Pinnacle spin the way the pros wanted.
The ball has always (legally) gone pretty far.
So little comprehension, so much blather.
-
I have a hunch that the "stated goals" of the rollback do not reflect their most ardent concerns about distance. IMO, this is indeed about "preserving" the relevance of a handful of historic courses, and possibly also a reflection of the opinions of certain people on how the modern game looks (long drives, wedges, etc.) compared to the game they played in their heyday. Not to say there aren't other reasons they sincerely embrace as well...and I'm not saying the other reasons (water, land, etc.) aren't valid. But the most important things to them are appearance and history, IMO.