USGA DISTANCE INSIGHT

[Lincoln_Arcadia]

That’s my guess. Higher spin through the dimples.

My kids found a really spinny trick ball, and we had fun with that. The balls would simply plop and drop. Sometimes embedding.

I’d guess those with higher swing speed have more chances of sticking greens better.

[bigred90gt]

"Your presumption is that recreational golfers, and particularly the shortest-hitting recreational golfers, will be noticeably and adversely affected."

What I believe, and what most recreational golfers believe, is that the distance a recreational golfer hits a golf ball should not determine if they are adversely affected or not. NO recreational golfer AT ALL should be affected in ANY way by any roll back of any equipment. Period. Ensure that, and support would probably increase.

[storm319]

Still giving the balata ball more credit for the higher spin than is due in reality. It really was a combination of the ball, smaller driver heads with relatively high COG, and the typically negative angle of attack for the players of that time that resulted in higher spin. The reason why those same balls spin less with modern equipment is due lower CG that ends up closer to the equator or below in relation to the impact location as well as more players with a relatively neutral to positive angle of attack. While the ball makers could definitely design a ball that spins more under pro-typical professional swing conditions, I don't think it is going to be drastic enough to get to wound balata levels based on the other two factors I mentioned above.

Ultimately I do not think it is possible to go back to that time (just like there was no going back to Bobby Jones' time once wound balls replaced the gutty and steel shafts replaced hickory).

[bigred90gt]

Maybe no big deal to you, then again, you're not the one footing the bill for building a new set of tee boxes for 18 holes.

[Lincoln_Arcadia]

Again, less forgiving heads won’t reduce the distances of the pros.

Even I’m not so bad with Persimmons myself. A few of my “Hickory Club” acquaintances use them with no issues. They’re heavier so weaker players will swing them slower.

All this talk about capping distances will only hurt the shorter hitter. It’s Physics, not Magic.

[bigred90gt]

"That — not before — is when I push back. And my pushback is always deservedly administered."

 

Except that part, which is an important statement (probably the most important in your post) is completely and utterly false. YOU are the one who starts with the condescending posts when someone disagrees with you. YOU are the one who likes to point out how much more you think you know about the game of golf than anyone who does not share your views on how it should be played. If you want to try to make a point and paint yourself a victim, you should at least have a leg to stand on when you do it.

[Mudguard]

To be honest, if there was a ball for tour use only, I don't think your local shop would bother stocking them. But to counter that, there are hundreds of different types of ball for sale anyway! As an amateur I don't think distance is a problem.

So if they want changes for the pros, then do it to them. I still don't see distance as an issue on tour, if courses are running out of room that badly, it won't affect the non golf watching regular player.

[farmer]

The obvious answer is for the USGA and R&A to get into the golf manufacturing business. Take clubs and balls back to 1995, all steel shafts, no newfangled fitting, and then sanction events where players will be required to play these clubs and balls. And play only on links type courses that can be baked out in the middle of summer without killing the grass. The major tours could continue to play and market new clubs and balls (subject to existing regulations), so everybody is happy.

[15th Club]

I’m not taking that from you. Link us all to one of my comments where, unprovoked, I claimed to know more about the game than anyone with whom I disagreed.

I’m not claiming any victim status. Not as long as the mods treat everyone fairly and equally. I want this debate. I’m not shying away from anyone or anything, least of all you.

[Lincoln_Arcadia]

Funny enough, steel shafts don’t really need to be fine fitted by experts. “Fittings” were not really that prevalent until graphite shafts with high torque angles and varied kick points came about?

I really can’t imagine steel shafts stopping tour players from bombing 350 yards? Imagine an entire field of Jacks and super-Jacks. That’s pretty much what the tour looks like now.

Then again, I can’t really imagine going back to the prehistoric days of golf equipment.

Who makes this one tour ball? What about aspiring competitors in high school, AJGA, PGA Jr, etc? That doesn’t sound like “Tour only” is possible?

Sounds better and better if you manufacture balls for a living. Lol.

[clevited]

"I want this debate. I’m not shying away from anyone or anything, "least of all you."

 

You really are a charmer aren't you. Winning hearts and minds I see.

 

Also, if I see you write this again," I want this debate." I am going to throw up in my mouth a little.

 

[15th Club]

I like this comment a lot:

”Funny enough, steel shafts don’t really need to be fine fitted by experts. “Fittings” were not really that prevalent until graphite shafts with high torque angles and varied kick points came about?”

That seems totally correct to me. Not only are composite shafts themselves more expensive and more complicated; they lend themselves to even more expensive things. Launch monitoring; basic selection of composites from thousands of possibilities; more and more fitting and fine tuning that caters to the super-elite players, and those few who can afford the time and expense of super-elite-level fittings.

[15th Club]

Umm; you read the comment I was replying to?

I was going to say that if I read one more comment saying that a simple solution to distance is to just narrow the fairways and grow deeper rough, that I might barf all over my keyboard. But I actually don’t give such comments enough seriousness for such a reaction.

[farmer]

Steel shafts came in a variety of weights and kick points even back in pre-history '95. This equipment would be mandated for USGA , R&A sanctioned events. The equipment would be contracted out to whomever wants to fool with it. Wound balls are off the table, I doubt that equipment even exists today, or in five years when a decision of some kind is made. All other events continue with existing equipment regulations.

[smashdn]

How the Humble Tennis Ball Has Helped Change the Game

Interesting read regarding changes made to the tennis ball and how it "balanced" the styles of play to fit how the ITF wanted the game to be played. I know full well this is not directly analogous to golf as you are competing against another player using the shared equipment (the ball) in tennis but found it interesting as precedent none-the-less.

 

[Lincoln_Arcadia]

Yes, the impossibly complicated shaft selection process alone might push me over to the rollback side of things. Lol

[15th Club]

smashdn:

I think that’s a great article (unusual for Bleacher Report), and a valuable contribution to this debate. I think the analogy is pretty good in fact. I have a vague recollection that Geoff Shackelford referenced it some time ago, but I can’t place it right now.

[smashdn]

"All this talk about capping distances will only hurt the shorter hitter. It’s Physics, not Magic."

 

Physics applies equally to everyone does it not. It's not magic.

 

Do note, there is a fine line between physics and ballistics. The rules of ballistics are not always linear as they are in theoretical physics. When you introduce aerodynamic drag things get interesting.

[gvogel]

Just to be historically correct, steel shafts were legalized in 1925, and many players switched. But Bobby Jones continued to use his hickory shafted clubs through 1930, when he won everything. Why? Because he had confidence in them, and he was strong like bull.

Wound balls became standard around 1904 - 1905, replacing the gutty.

[ThinkingPlus]

Most of this isn't really correct. Ballistics is a particular area of study within Classical Mechanics which is one of the major fields within classical physics. Physical relationships can be linear or non-linear within all areas of physics. Many times to provide a 1st order analysis of some phenomena, physicists will do linear approximations just to get a starting point, but the true relationship is more complicated. Certainly, one cannot get very good predictions of golf ball flight without including aerodynamic drag which is a non-linear factor.

[Lincoln_Arcadia]

Right, was wondering about that statement?

Drag, friction are all non linear, but always dictated by Physics. As I understand it, many of the ball equations are not solvable in closed form, but still are solvable numerically. Basically, we’re converting kinetic energy from the club system into the motion of the ball. More kinetic energy = more distance all else being equal.

[smashdn]

My overarching point I guess that to say that the longer hitter is equitably rewarded or penalized is as much false as the same statement for a slower swing player.

I admittedly botched the analogy.

Where I bring ballistics to the equation, regarding shot shells only in this regard, a sphere started at a given velocity will slough off velocity and energy at a higher rate than will one started at a slower velocity, though one started at a higher velocity will go further, it is not a linear relationship.

 

In golf terms it could mean that a swing speed difference from 95 to 100 mph may generate you ten more yards but a swing speed difference of 120 to 125 may not result in that same ten yard gain.

[Lincoln_Arcadia]

If the projectiles are the same the more energy behind the object, the farther it will go. That’s what I meant by Physics.

Faster swings will always generate more energy on the ball. If it spins more you can reduce your launch, it still goes farther than a slow swinger hitting the same ball.

[15th Club]

And, Greg, let us remind All once again that the advent of steel, while it might have upset some traditionalists, was a wonderful, democratizing advance in equipment technology. Steel was cheaper than hickory and with time became much, much, cheaper. It became apparent that steel was easier to work with; much easier to build a consistent set of clubs; less prone to breaking.

One of the very best examples of a good equipment technology advance in golf.

Making the game simpler and more affordable than the product it replaced.

 

[Ashley Schaeffer]

Making the game simpler and more affordable than the product it replaced."Making the game simpler and more affordable than the product it replaced."

Much like the urethane covered ball, available at $39.99/doz. (and even cheaper for previous model years) from many sources, versus the $54.00/doz. Tour Balatas of yesteryear, not adjusted for inflation. Much more durable. Much less prone to breaking. One of the very best examples of a good equipment technology advance in golf.

[storm319]

Well his comment backfired nicely. Nice return :)

[mahonie]

I’ve read somewhere recently that above 120mph swing speeds, some golf balls compress so much that they become unstable immediately after impact which affects spin primarily and subsequently distance and control and thus there is little to no benefit beyond those swing speeds.

[ThinkingPlus]

Hmm, highly unlikely, but would be interested in reading that article if you can find it. Balls are essentially springs so they would fail by staying permanently deformed or blowing apart. Either failure would be obvious.

[mahonie]

I mis-remembered (it’s an age thing)...what I actually read is that you get diminishing returns the higher the swing speed (beyond a certain level). The article was actually from the USGA:https://www.usga.org/articles/2011/04/do-long-hitters-get-an-unfair-advantage-2147496940.html

[Mudguard]

Who makes this one tour ball?

All the manufacturers can make it, if it conforms.What about aspiring competitors in high school, AJGA, PGA Jr, etc?

Use the amateur ball. Why would a high school player use a tour only product.That doesn’t sound like “Tour only” is possible?

At which point to baseball players go back to wood?Sounds better and better if you manufacture balls for a living. Lol.

Pretty sure ball companies make their money on balls they sell to us, non tour players. Anything at elite level are given are way, and in reality are probably subsidized by amateuers!