USGA DISTANCE INSIGHT

[ThinkingPlus]

While what is presented in that article is true the verbiage used exaggerates the effect. The difference between the curve in Figure 1 and a straight line is very slight. For all practical purposes, distance vs club head speed is a linear function. However, the article does do a good job of dispelling the myth that very high speed players are somehow getting a magical boost us more mortals cannot ever achieve. No magic boost; you get out what you put in. Thanks for the link.

[15th Club]

As I have said before, I really don’t like replying to your trolling but sometimes I just have to correct the record when you are calling me out personally.

So, no; the modern multilayer urethane ball is NOT what produced the cutproof revolution in balls. That had already occurred before urethane exploded onto the Tour in 1999-2001. Long before the Pro V there were Surlyn and other Ionomer balls. Ignored by elite golfers because the spin was so low. Low-spinning in particular with iron and wedge play. Useless, to Tour players. But much loved by recreational players who loved their durable, cutproof, distance balls. So that wonderful democratizing advantage had already been conferred on unserious recreational players. (Players who, SKU-number sales tracking shows even now rarely if ever purchase top of the line urethane balls.)

Your hoped-for snark means nothing; average recreational players have never purchased large quantities of the premium urethane balls. Your point, whatever you might have wished for, is not relevant to any great democratizing effect with golf balls.

I encourage everyone to re-watch the first 4-5 minutes of the Dean Snell video, featured in another thread on this forum. In that opening monologue, Dean Snell gives a rather good historical summary of the early development of urethane balls. He explains that the ultra-low spin quality that had always existed with recreational distance balls suddenly became available to elites, when ball designers figured out how, with multilayer technology and urethane covers, to deliver low driver spin with acceptable scoring club spin. Boom. An "advantage" that recreational players had long enjoyed (purely and solely in terms of low driver spin), suddenly conferred on elites.

That is the perverse thing about modern urethane balls. They have been uniquely and peculiarly beneficial for the best players.

[15th Club]

About Steve Quintavalla's paper; I am pretty sure that he is still at the USGA. What his paper showed was that among Tour players, they all got an 11+ yard distance gain, in the space of less than five years right after the introduction of multilayer urethane balls. Not from workin' out. Not from fairway mowers. It was the ball.

He also claims to have found something very interesting. Which is that the urethane balls helped everybody on Tour, without regard to who had the most superfast swing speed and who had a merely fast swing speed. (Let's face it; compared to recreational players, everybody on the PGA Tour is really long. Almost unbelievably long.) Steve seems to have figured out, as of about 2005-2010, that Tiger Woods (316) and his friend Mark O'Meara (277) were both getting about the same distance gain with their new urethane balls.

And, uh, okay. I think Steve would agree that recreational players at the time were not seeing sudden 11-yard gains with urethane balls. But what is absolutely inarguable is that recreational players who were not using urethane balls, were not getting any distance gains courtesy of those balls (that they were not using).

I'd like to see Steve's paper updated for 2020. And addressing this question: Are further enhancements to multilayer urethane balls that have nothing at all to do with initial velocity in the USGA's ODS testing actually allowing players to swing faster, thanks to ever-lowering spin rates that encourage harder and harder swings with balls that are in fact more forgiving.

[15th Club]

My speaking to steel shafts and surlyn covers goes back at least two years. Much longer in fact, I suspect:https://forums.golfwrx.com/discussion/comment/16903012/#Comment_16903012

[Ashley Schaeffer]

Premium performance balls at a lower price. Not trolling. Facts. Sorry about it.

[Lincoln_Arcadia]

Haha. Good answers!

[storm319]

Hey Captain Ahab, where is the normalized data to support that distance gains during that period were 100% attributed to the ball? Your whale hunt against the golf ball has ventured beyond obsessive (how did that work out Ahab?).

The reality is that eliminating all other variables during that time frame to truly isolate them impact of the ball paradigm shift is literally impossible. The problem is that people are exaggerating the impact of whatever single variable fits their own subjective and often emotional viewpoint. It is a composite of multiple variables and you have to give credit where credit is due.

[Mudguard]

Surely it would be easy enough to look at the tour player averages the year before the ProV and the year after? That said, not everyone was using a ProV, Top Filte and Precept had their EVs and Stratas etc. But I would think there would be less variation in agronomy and fitness regimes over those two particular years.

That said, we all acknowledge that there is more than one variable. My view (if pro distance is indeed a problem) is having a slow, pro-only ball would be the most simple solution.

[15th Club]

It is amazing that this zombie idea cannot be killed.

The USGA does not care about claims that "fitness" is producing more distance. Or that "agronomy" is producing more distance.

No ruling body in golf is going to regulate fitness.

And the agronomy, such as it is, is going to be determined by how to best set up the courses for the way that they were meant to be played. Not in phony ways to trick courses into playing harder, or seeming longer.

If it were 100% proven that "fitness" was the cause of all distance gains on the PGA Tour, it would still make sense to roll back the golf ball testing standards. Because the USGA can control those standards, and not "fitness."

Now I fully expect you to not like what I have just written. And I truly do not care what you think. I care about where the Ruling Bodies are going. And they telegraphed their intentions in 2002:

"The R&A and the USGA believe, however, that any further significant increases in hitting distances at the highest level are undesirable. Whether these increases in distance emanate from advancing equipment technology, greater athleticism of players, improved player coaching, golf course conditioning or a combination of these or other factors, they will have the impact of seriously reducing the challenge of the game. The consequential lengthening or toughening of courses would be costly or impossible and would have a negative effect on increasingly important environmental and ecological issues. Pace of play would be slowed and playing costs would increase."https://www.usga.org/content/usga/home-page/equipment-standards/joint-statement-of-principles-892b2553.html

[storm319]

It is clear that they don’t care to understand the root causes that resulted in distance increases during that time, but that in and of itself is the problem.

No one is suggesting regulating fitness, just that they acknowledge that factor’s role in distance increases vs their incessant over-exaggeration of the ball’s role.

Also that statement is as pathetic today as it was in 2002. How is it possible that the USGA has spent all of this time failing to quantify “desirable”? If equipment is to take the primary blame, why will they not acknowledge their role in allowing it to get to this point?

[Ashley Schaeffer]

To me, that’s the pretzel the blind USGA supporters’ brains are in in the debate:

”Sure, we shat the bed for decades, but trust us now.” That’s all the USGA can say.

 

[rangersgoalie]

I personally gained and watched many fellow professionals make these type of gains

we learned to look for very different launch angles, spin rates and swing adjustments to take advantage of the equipment, and in my opinion, the far better understanding of what the ideal launch conditions were ( and are).

 

and yes, I understand the position that the reasons do not matter, but it was not simply Titleist making a better ball, it was a wholesale change for what top level players needed and were able to adjust to. FWIW

[Mudguard]

Because I was bored. The Pro V was introduced to professionals in October 2000.

I looked at the driving distance for 1st, 50th and 100th for the year 2000 and 2001. It looked like a 6y increase across the board.

Of course not everyone used it, but 47 did at the first event and winner used it.

[gvogel]

Good point Ashley. And if you live in the Northeast where it is wet in the spring and fall, you can get away with even more affordable surlyn balls.

[Sean2]

And, where the ball doesn't get any roll. :-)

[tsecor]

its amazing how many people act like they play on the PGA tour.....most balls work for the amateur player, if you want a prov1 because you gain 3 yards, good for you. If you want to play a $10/dzn noodle, that can work for most amateurs too.....the way people blow up these issues is hilarious.

there are videos of guys playing range balls that play just as good as a prov......maybe its the ball striker over the ball?

[15th Club]

I agree with you on those facts!  So did Dean Snell!  That is what I have been saying.  Alone, urethane balls changed the entire distance paradigm in golf.  Balls went straight and did not spin.  So a top level elite player needed to learn to launch higher, and could swing much harder.  Different ball performance led inexorably to different driver specs.  And everything got longer.

We could, in a ball rollback, retain a lot of those characteristics.  Low spin; an emphasis on swing speed, etc.  And yet scale the balls back to better fit the golf courses.

[15th Club]

Well the first stupid thing about your comment is that lots of ball rollback advocates like Geoff Shackelford are also somewhat severe USGA critics. Not "blind supporters." So there's that. I think Jack Nicklaus has been as relentless in being critical of the USGA as he has been critical of Titleist. Jack started criticizing Titleist only when we got into the late 2010's (teens). He was criticizing the USGA more than ten years before that.

As for me, I get more and more ardent in my defense of the USGA the longer I hang around with people like the GolfWRX crowd. And in particular, I think that the USGA knows a lot better than you do, what they might be up against in litigation from ball manufacturers. Or even just one ball manufacturer. They need to marshal a lot of support, a lot of data, a lot of documented distance problems before they act. To win the case they are probably anticipating.

[storm319]

If they have any real normalized data correlating to their perceived problem, then they have not shared it yet. All that distance study showed was a few generic figures illustrating distance increases and a bunch of highly subjective conclusions without correlating support. They still have yet to truly define the problem or quantify their ultimate goal. What they have presented thus far has been very disingenuous which is part of the reason for the blowback and criticism (which is well deserved).

What the game needs is an organization that will drive a coordinated effort with representation from all stakeholders in coming to a consensus on the future of the game and administering that consensus within the rules not pushing their own subjective agenda while disregarding input from the other stakeholders that don’t share their viewpoint.

[smashdn]

That was what I was attempting to get at with my poorly executed post. I know in shotshells, something I have much better luck at making go where I intend, that you reach a point about 1550-1700 foot per second where there is no appreciable difference in performance. I suspect there is some threshold for initial velocity (swing speed) where the curve gets steep and you just can't wring much distance out.

Does your golf game change appreciably if you drive the ball 310 versus 300? The courses I play 280-290 is as playable as 300. I typically play the furthest back tees because I can get it out there with the driver that far. My iron game on the other hand is not as good and thus I don't score well. Despite being closer after the drive I just don't knock down many pins and give my self birdie chances, except on par fives. They are all nearly gettable in two for me though the long iron game most often leads me to chipping or pitching from around the green.

[davep043]

So we need someone to invite contributions from all interested parties. that seems like a decent idea to me. Something like this:

"We invite input from manufacturers and other stakeholders in the golf community concerning potential equipment-based options to help achieve the objectives identified above. To facilitate that input, within 45 days we will publish a more specific set of research topics. It is anticipated that this important step of gathering input will take at least 9-12 months. After the research is completed and comments are evaluated, if we then decide to propose any rule changes, manufacturers will receive notice of these proposed changes (including a proposed implementation plan) and an opportunity to comment under the Equipment Rulemaking Procedures. "

Now if you want to claim that this is all a sham, that the Ruling Bodies are going to do whatever they please no matter what anyone says, there's no discussion to be had. But on the face of it, this sounds like just what you want to see happen.

I'll be the first to admit that I haven't read every bit of the full report, probably some of the posters in this thread have. But I bet that very few have done much to delve into the backing data, reported through the Distance Insights Library linked on this page: Distance Insights

[Sean2]

Yes, it would be nice if the USGA solicited opinions from those that keep the game alive and going...that would be us, the 60 million recreational golfers around the world. The USGA isn't sacrosanct. It's make up of people who are not infallible, though at times I wonder if they think they are. Mike Davis wants to roll the ball back...since when did he become the sole representative of every golfer on the planet?

[davep043]

Mike Davis has made his personal feelings clear, yet the report that was issued jointly by the USGA and R&A specifically didn't come to the same conclusion. Apparently Mr. Davis doesn't speak for the entirety of the ruling bodies, let alone speak for all golfers.

[smashdn]

What is the alternative? They say if you find yourself in a hole to quit digging. If you realize you have went down an undesirable path do you keep going hoping it will get better or do you act to rectify it?

 

It seems there is a group that doesn't like the USGA's past inaction and yet also does not care for any speculative action that they may take as well. Can you have it both ways? Perhaps they are angling for another group to make the rules of golf?

[smashdn]

If you were anticipating litigation would you give the plaintiff a chance to review your evidence before you absolutely had to?

[storm319]

The integrity of their statement remains to be seen as IMHO actions speak louder than words (of which the USGA does not have a great track record).

Their comment periods with past equipment regulation have not resulted in any deviation from their initial proposal and they were criticized heavily for the exclusion of key stakeholders with the groove rollback. Trust me, I hope my assumptions are wrong here, I’m just not holding my breath.

[15th Club]

Yours is an interesting comment but I will very respectfully disagree. Absolutely everything the USGA has would be disclosed under the FRCP in litigation; I truly don’t think the USGA is in the business of hiding anything until the moment suits them.

But I do think that the USGA would absolutely regard themselves in a posture of pre litigation. Taking all the time that they can to document absolutely everything that they feel that they may need if it comes to litigation. Hopefully avoiding litigation.

[davep043]

I don't know what else they can do at this stage, they say that they're going to do exactly what you think should be done, and you're still not satisfied. And remember, you're including the R&A in all of this distrust.

[strug'-a-ling]

True and typical. Why does the USGA obsess over a few elite players when they are charged with the responsibility of overseeing the game for millions of recreational players?

Every sport has equipment rules, but every sport isn't played by millions of adults on a recreational basis. The USGA's equipment rules should always be made with recreational golf predominantly in mind,

If the PGA Tour needs rules of it's own, let them be the ones to bifurcate.

Yes, the USGA conducts a number of prestigious championship tournaments.

If, however, they think that the conduct of these events is their main function, they're no longer useful to the rest of us and a competing governing body should arise to challenge them for club affiliations.

 

[bigred90gt]

"It seems there is a group that doesn't like the USGA's past inaction and yet also does not care for any speculative action that they may take as well."

I think that group is probably equally as small as the group that wants a rollback. I would think the largest group, by a very wide margin, would be the group that feels there was no "inaction" because there was nothing to act on, and also does not want any action they may take because there is still nothing to act on.