USGA Notice to Manufacturers

[Erik J. Barzeski]

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

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

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.

[Mark Pearce]

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.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

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

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.

[Wayne_Kozun]

    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.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

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:


Par 4s:


Par 3s and 4s:


Par 5s:


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."

[Garland Bayley]

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.

[Bryan Izatt]

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   

[Erik J. Barzeski]

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/ 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 and 11, 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.

[Kalen Braley]

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

[Pat Burke]

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/ 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 and 11, 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.

[Tim_Cronin]

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.

[Tim Martin]

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.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

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.

[JohnVDB]

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]

[Tim Martin]

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.

[Ken Moum]

[


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.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

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).

[JohnVDB]

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.

[James Brown]

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]

[Rob Marshall]

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.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

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.

[Jim Hoak]

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.

[Charlie Goerges]

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.

[Bryan Izatt]

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..

[Bryan Izatt]

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. 

[Tags:]

Tags: