USGA Distance Rollback and the Future of Golf?

[James the Hogan Fan]

The problem is driver technology as a whole remained static from 1945 to 1980. A block of wood turned into the familiar shape with a hard plastic/fiber insert and possibly some ballast weight. 

 

All the USGA had to do was say, when the Pittsburgh Persimmon came out, "uh, how 'bout no?" And write some rule like:

 

"any clubhead of loft less than 25°, or whose volume exceeds x, or whose distance front to back as measured perpendicular to the face to the furthest extremity is greater than 1.5 inches, shall be constructed primarily of wood."

 

Or perhaps simpler:

 

"A clubhead shall not be hollow. note: clubs built in a "shell-and-filler" manner to circumvent this rule are also prohibited"

 

And then we'd have wooden woods, (and some very heavy metal ones, and crazy expensive carbon fiber ones) which require softer, spinnier golf balls to perform optimally, and the risk of truly insane dispersion would place a natural diminishing returns limit on driver distance.

 

But they didn't, and here we are. 

 

[2bGood]

1 hour ago, ThinkingPlus said:

My physics degree says it is highly unlikely such a ball can be produced, but I won't be surprised if the RBs try to go down that path.  Once again it is an area they are not good at and will likely screw up.

My physics degree says it can!  (Not actually - I do have a degree in Physics, but I never used it as I went on do to my graduate degrees in other areas, and I can barely remember most of it from a few decades ago) But all the same what specifically within the laws of physics do you think would prevent such a ball from being engineered? Just spit balling a few ideas - it would be a very easy task to engineer a ball that would fail when hit too hard for instance. We use to goof around as kids, hitting oranges with baseball bats to see who could hit them the furthest. There was an art to it as the trick was to hit hard enough to go far, but not hard enough for the orange to fail (all over you). This would be a rather comical way to limit distance - hit it TOO hard and the ball explodes!? Of course it does not need to be catastrophic failure that occurs.

 

I little less comical would be to mess with the dimple pattern and aerodynamics of the ball as aerodynamics are very speed sensitive. Another would be looking at how the ball deforms and losses energy on impact. There are lots of materials that do not have a linear relationship under stress. 

 

I don't disagree the RB's will get this wrong, but I have faith the engineers could pull it off if given the chance - but I have more faith in science then governing bodies. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited September 23, 2020 by 2bGood

[2bGood]

45 minutes ago, A.Princey said:

You do realize your swing speed will remain 100ish mph after a potential rollback???? Now ballspeed, there's the real number that matters in the ego dept.....

Yep I get that. I picked 100 as thought I happen to swing about 102, MOST golfers don't exceed this. From what I have seen too much distance is not hurting the game or making shorter course obsolete at the 'recreational' level. No reason to roll the ball back for the average Joe or Jane.

 

The easiest thing to do would be go for bifurcation, but that seems to be a non-starter for the R and A and USGA so far. 

[Golf10]

3 hours ago, CasualLie said:

Let's just cut to the chase and have a tournament of all par 3's.  Range them from 130 - 230.  After all, we don't want the big hitters to have an advantage bombing it 350.  We can't have that, it is ruining the game.  Why?   Because golf is all about precision irons and putting?  Then fine, just take driver out of the game, shorten the courses and may the best putter win.  It won't exactly make for compelling TV, but think of all the water we will save!  ?

 

 

 

You're okay with them hitting wedge into every par 4 and some par 5s?  

[harolease]

I have proposed that we take tees out the game.  Driver off the deck instead of a tee will reduce the distance. Manufacture will make smaller depth driver heads.   Fairway woods and hybrids will be played more often then modern drivers.  

[Fairway14]

14 hours ago, PJE said:

Winged Foot and other blue blooded older clubs are near and dear to the heart of the USGA.  More importantly, DeChambeau's way of playing, full speed ahead and damn the rough, seems a portent of things to come (maybe) in golf. (There are already plenty of hulking long drivers who can't  actually play golf, i.e., score).

 

 

It's only a problem if it's made to be a problem. I don't see why Winged Foot, Baltusrol, Pebble Beach, Oakmont, or any of the traditional courses can't be used to host US Open tournaments. If the winning score is way under par what's wrong with that ?

[Fairway14]

1 hour ago, harolease said:

I have proposed that we take tees out the game.  Driver off the deck instead of a tee will reduce the distance. Manufacture will make smaller depth driver heads.   Fairway woods and hybrids will be played more often then modern drivers.  

 

That's not a bad idea, but having well maintained tee boxes could be a problem.

[Fairway14]

4 hours ago, Golf10 said:

 

You're okay with them hitting wedge into every par 4 and some par 5s?  

 

I am ok with that.

[Lincoln_Arcadia]

7 hours ago, 2bGood said:

My physics degree says it can!  (Not actually - I do have a degree in Physics, but I never used it as I went on do to my graduate degrees in other areas, and I can barely remember most of it from a few decades ago) But all the same what specifically within the laws of physics do you think would prevent such a ball from being engineered? Just spit balling a few ideas - it would be a very easy task to engineer a ball that would fail when hit too hard for instance. We use to goof around as kids, hitting oranges with baseball bats to see who could hit them the furthest. There was an art to it as the trick was to hit hard enough to go far, but not hard enough for the orange to fail (all over you). This would be a rather comical way to limit distance - hit it TOO hard and the ball explodes!? Of course it does not need to be catastrophic failure that occurs.

 

I little less comical would be to mess with the dimple pattern and aerodynamics of the ball as aerodynamics are very speed sensitive. Another would be looking at how the ball deforms and losses energy on impact. There are lots of materials that do not have a linear relationship under stress. 

 

I don't disagree the RB's will get this wrong, but I have faith the engineers could pull it off if given the chance - but I have more faith in science then governing bodies. 

I don’t have a degree in physics, but if I remember my college level physics, more energy in the more energy out. I believe it was called conservation of energy? So, if this ball could be built, that extra energy from higher speed swings at impact would have to go somewhere?

[jvincent]

7 hours ago, 2bGood said:

My physics degree says it can!  (Not actually - I do have a degree in Physics, but I never used it as I went on do to my graduate degrees in other areas, and I can barely remember most of it from a few decades ago) But all the same what specifically within the laws of physics do you think would prevent such a ball from being engineered? Just spit balling a few ideas - it would be a very easy task to engineer a ball that would fail when hit too hard for instance. We use to goof around as kids, hitting oranges with baseball bats to see who could hit them the furthest. There was an art to it as the trick was to hit hard enough to go far, but not hard enough for the orange to fail (all over you). This would be a rather comical way to limit distance - hit it TOO hard and the ball explodes!? Of course it does not need to be catastrophic failure that occurs.

 

I little less comical would be to mess with the dimple pattern and aerodynamics of the ball as aerodynamics are very speed sensitive. Another would be looking at how the ball deforms and losses energy on impact. There are lots of materials that do not have a linear relationship under stress. 

 

I don't disagree the RB's will get this wrong, but I have faith the engineers could pull it off if given the chance - but I have more faith in science then governing bodies. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There are quite a few papers on golf ball aerodynamics if you're bored.

 

In the end it comes down to the drag on the golf ball at different speeds/spins. Ball diameter (fixed by the USGA) and dimple design are the biggest factors there.

 

I've said previously that if the USGA wanted to limit the ball the easiest way to do it would be to change the launch conditions they use in the ball distance test without changing the actual distance limit. Right now the speed they use for testing balls is too low. Raise the speed used in test and the problem is solved.

[Lincoln_Arcadia]

4 minutes ago, jvincent said:

There are quite a few papers on golf ball aerodynamics if you're bored.

 

In the end it comes down to the drag on the golf ball at different speeds/spins. Ball diameter (fixed by the USGA) and dimple design are the biggest factors there.

 

I've said previously that if the USGA wanted to limit the ball the easiest way to do it would be to change the launch conditions they use in the ball distance test without changing the actual distance limit. Right now the speed they use for testing balls is too low. Raise the speed used in test and the problem is solved.

How does this work?

 

It seems like higher speed swingers are already fighting diminishing returns on distances versus speed?

[ThinkingPlus]

8 hours ago, 2bGood said:

My physics degree says it can!  (Not actually - I do have a degree in Physics, but I never used it as I went on do to my graduate degrees in other areas, and I can barely remember most of it from a few decades ago) But all the same what specifically within the laws of physics do you think would prevent such a ball from being engineered? Just spit balling a few ideas - it would be a very easy task to engineer a ball that would fail when hit too hard for instance. We use to goof around as kids, hitting oranges with baseball bats to see who could hit them the furthest. There was an art to it as the trick was to hit hard enough to go far, but not hard enough for the orange to fail (all over you). This would be a rather comical way to limit distance - hit it TOO hard and the ball explodes!? Of course it does not need to be catastrophic failure that occurs.

 

I little less comical would be to mess with the dimple pattern and aerodynamics of the ball as aerodynamics are very speed sensitive. Another would be looking at how the ball deforms and losses energy on impact. There are lots of materials that do not have a linear relationship under stress. 

 

I don't disagree the RB's will get this wrong, but I have faith the engineers could pull it off if given the chance - but I have more faith in science then governing bodies. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I doubt anyone can formulate just the right kind of non-linear material to get a significant enough effect to matter.  If the material yielded when struck too hard then the internal cracks would make the ball unusable yet it might likely appear fine on the surface.  As already discussed countless times, the necessary reduction in distance performance  to "save the classic courses" is 20%.  If that restrictive a solution is applied to everyone, the amateur game suffers terribly.  Bifurcation is also problematic for a whole host of reasons that even the RBs recognize.  However, the RBs are likely going to do something and it won't turn out well just like the groove and anchoring fiasco. 

[davep043]

17 hours ago, ThinkingPlus said:

Wow, such an original thought for a thread.  We should have been discussing this for years.  Oh wait...we have.  Over and over and over...ad infinitum.  IBTL

Amen!  I refuse to engage in discussion of some random guy's speculation that the USGA will reverse course from their published intentions.  Davis has long been a proponent of reducing distance, yet the report developed and released specifically says that there is no intention to reduce distance across the board.  Davis's remarks in announcing his retirement do nothing to change that, he'd still like to see distance reduced, but his is not the only voice that matters, especially as a lame duck.

[ThinkingPlus]

2 minutes ago, davep043 said:

Amen!  I refuse to engage in discussion of some random guy's speculation that the USGA will reverse course from their published intentions.  Davis has long been a proponent of reducing distance, yet the report developed and released specifically says that there is no intention to reduce distance across the board.  Davis's remarks in announcing his retirement do nothing to change that, he'd still like to see distance reduced, but his is not the only voice that matters, especially as a lame duck.

Let's hope so.  We have no control over this outcome, so hope is all we have.

[dlygrisse]

I for one don’t think the sky is falling, I think WF should have had fairways that narrowed around 300 yards so the long hitters would have had to make more risk reward decisions off the tee. This would have changed some strategies. Not sure if Bryson would have played the course different?
 

I will say the long hitters have become exponentially longer, they have picked up 40 yards while the average hitter has picked up maybe 10 yards. Once you get below 90 mph the face just doesn’t spring much. 
 

the USGA made a huge mistake allowing spring like affect, it used to be written in the rules but they never defined it.  You really can’t put the toothpaste back in the tube at this point without creating a huge mess.  Also the USGA needs to remember that the rules of golf aren’t written for the elite .001% of the golfers.  Millions of people play golf for fun, not as professionals.  
 

 

[davep043]

Just now, ThinkingPlus said:

Let's hope so.  We have no control over this outcome, so hope is all we have.

So true, but at this point I think its more appropriate to base discussion on the written report, not on idle speculation that assumes the report is a complete lie.

[dlygrisse]

9 hours ago, 2bGood said:

My physics degree says it can!  (Not actually - I do have a degree in Physics, but I never used it as I went on do to my graduate degrees in other areas, and I can barely remember most of it from a few decades ago) But all the same what specifically within the laws of physics do you think would prevent such a ball from being engineered? Just spit balling a few ideas - it would be a very easy task to engineer a ball that would fail when hit too hard for instance. We use to goof around as kids, hitting oranges with baseball bats to see who could hit them the furthest. There was an art to it as the trick was to hit hard enough to go far, but not hard enough for the orange to fail (all over you). This would be a rather comical way to limit distance - hit it TOO hard and the ball explodes!? Of course it does not need to be catastrophic failure that occurs.

 

I little less comical would be to mess with the dimple pattern and aerodynamics of the ball as aerodynamics are very speed sensitive. Another would be looking at how the ball deforms and losses energy on impact. There are lots of materials that do not have a linear relationship under stress. 

 

I don't disagree the RB's will get this wrong, but I have faith the engineers could pull it off if given the chance - but I have more faith in science then governing bodies. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 Make the ball spin more at high compression, the inner core when struck with a driver. Prior to the ProV1 you had wound balls that spun and distance balls that didn’t. Pick your poison. Now you have the best of both worlds. 

 

if high speed players were spinning it at 3000 rpm’s they would have to play tee shots with more control and finesse. Amateurs could pick a distance ball or deal with a little more spin which may actually help some low speed players. 
 

 

 

Edited September 23, 2020 by dlygrisse

[CasualLie]

What I was wondering last night watching TGC and the distance debate specific to BDC, how do we know so-called physics expert BDC has not been talking to a ball manufacturer about the next frontier in distance?  And what stops a ball manufacturer from making a golf ball specific only to max swing speeds, gets the most distance, yet only durable enough and the right spin to last one hole?  I don't it is an issue for the caddy to carry 18 of those.

 

Let's just have a tournament ball for PGA Tour, the feeder tours, college, and majors...then be done with it?  Would it really be that much of a problem for golf?  It's not going to solve all the problems, that will never happen, but it can at least roll back distance a little, then put a cap on it, and no more talk of 8,000 yard courses (at least for awhile).  Two years after the belly aching everyone will treat the tournament ball as normal life.

 

It won't affect the mass golf population at all.  If anything, it might be a better equalizer in a friendly match instead of indexes.  

[Golf10]

4 hours ago, Fairway14 said:

 

I am ok with that.

 

Fair enough.  I'm on the side of skill not leaning on ball tech.

[PJE]

5 hours ago, Fairway14 said:

 

It's only a problem if it's made to be a problem. I don't see why Winged Foot, Baltusrol, Pebble Beach, Oakmont, or any of the traditional courses can't be used to host US Open tournaments. If the winning score is way under par what's wrong with that ?

Good point, also I don't think anything is wrong with it. But, I think there is an aversion to it. People really seemed to be shocked with DeChambeau's approach or rather ability to muscle out of the rough with short irons. I was wondering if that would be the straw that breaks the camel's back. 

[CasualLie]

12 minutes ago, PJE said:

Good point, also I don't think anything is wrong with it. But, I think there is an aversion to it. People really seemed to be shocked with DeChambeau's approach or rather ability to muscle out of the rough with short irons. I was wondering if that would be the straw that breaks the camel's back. 

 

Not sure how you regulate that.  If some beefy person wants to rip at a ball with wedge from rough and has the muscle to hit wedge 150, then what can you do? It's only a matter of time before they can do it consistently and land on the green.  In US Open conditions it is not going to get a lot of birdies, but it will get a lot of pars and that's what you need.  

[jvincent]

2 hours ago, Lincoln_Arcadia said:

How does this work?

 

It seems like higher speed swingers are already fighting diminishing returns on distances versus speed?

Yes and no.

 

Until you reach critical velocity faster swingers will always hit it further.

 

But golf ball drag is a function of speed, spin, dimple shape, etc. Right now the USGA does tests at a speed well below what the big hitters are capable of. So, if they change the total distance test conditions to better reflect what the top golfers are capable of the issue goes away.

 

IIRC the total distance limit of the test is 320 yards at a ball speed of 170 mph.  Just change the speed condition to 200 mph and keep the limit at 320 yards. Done.

 

Yes, all current balls will fail, but just give them a 5-year grace period before they are illegal.

Edited September 23, 2020 by jvincent

[ThinkingPlus]

22 minutes ago, jvincent said:

Yes and no.

 

Until you reach critical velocity faster swingers will always hit it further.

 

But golf ball drag is a function of speed, spin, dimple shape, etc. Right now the USGA does tests at a speed well below what the big hitters are capable of. So, if they change the total distance test conditions to better reflect what the top golfers are capable of the issue goes away.

 

IIRC the total distance limit of the test is 320 yards at a ball speed of 170 mph.  Just change the speed condition to 200 mph and keep the limit at 320 yards. Done.

 

Yes, all current balls will fail, but just give them a 5-year grace period before they are illegal.

I would think that pretty much all balls made since 1950 will fail.

[2bGood]

1 hour ago, CasualLie said:

What I was wondering last night watching TGC and the distance debate specific to BDC, how do we know so-called physics expert BDC has not been talking to a ball manufacturer about the next frontier in distance?  And what stops a ball manufacturer from making a golf ball specific only to max swing speeds, gets the most distance, yet only durable enough and the right spin to last one hole?  I don't it is an issue for the caddy to carry 18 of those.

 

 It always makes me chuckle when they play him up as some expert in Physics. He took two years of undergrad physics and never finished his degree (yet) - he is not even qualified to tutor a kid in High School physics. ?

 

Glad you added the so-called.?

[ThinkingPlus]

3 minutes ago, 2bGood said:

 It always makes me chuckle when they play him up as some expert in Physics. He took two years of undergrad physics and never finished his degree (yet) - he is not even qualified to tutor a kid in High School physics. ?

 

Glad you added the so-called.?

I think it was 3 years.  He quit after his junior year if I remember correctly because SMU's golf program was put on probation.  Could be wrong though.

[snab4]

I fully understand all the talk about rolling the ball back or increasing the spin of the ball, but the courses I play do not have 40-60 yards of roll when it lands.  I'm not sure of how this would be done, but why do their fairways need to stemp out at 10. Get the ball to stop rolling out that far.  Having that kind of roll out  is at least one or two clubs different into a green.  The last long drive hole in the Payne Valley expo didn't allow for nearly the roll they normally would get.  Only one of them even hit it 300.

 

Bryston also is using a wedge that is 6 iron in length which suggests he would have more clubhead speed and leverage.  He also has some super upright lie which may help.  Then, add in the fact he is hitting a wedge with bounce versus another player having to use 8/9 irons to try and cut through that grass. 

[Sean2]

11 hours ago, 2bGood said:

Yep I get that. I picked 100 as thought I happen to swing about 102, MOST golfers don't exceed this. From what I have seen too much distance is not hurting the game or making shorter course obsolete at the 'recreational' level. No reason to roll the ball back for the average Joe or Jane.

 

The easiest thing to do would be go for bifurcation, but that seems to be a non-starter for the R and A and USGA so far. 

The problem I see with bifurcation is what equipment does the aspiring amateur play? Colleges and university players? State amateur tournament and USGA amateur tournament players? 

[Soloman1]

The USGA and R&A could render themselves irrelevant with a wrong rule change.

 

Instead of bifurcation of equipment, maybe it's time for a new ruling body?

 

I'm here to announce the Amateur United States Golf Association (AUSAG). Amateurs can play golf according to a set of rules that apply to them and let the Tour and USGA and R&A flail around on their own.

 

The AUSGA will also create and administer an easy-to-understand handicap system - Handicaps for Golfers with a Short Attention Span Who Can't Understand a Thing and Fell Asleep in Arithmetic Classes in Elementary School™.

 

The proprietary algorithm is included in an app that takes your last score and subtracts it from the course rating. Voila. No math for the golfer.

 

I'm going to install myself as CEO. This is an altruistic pursuit, so I will only take a small stipend similar to other golf organizations heads who do this for the love of the game, such as AJGA - $500,000 plus some expense items like NetJets and travel and entertainment expenses visiting golf courses around the world, including fine dining.

 

That's my engineering degree talking to find a solution and build something using just enough calculus-based physics to be dangerous.

 

I'll be looking for a Marketing Director, Assistant Marketing Director, Executive Assistant Marketing Director, Director of Media, Assistant Director of Media, Creative Accounting Director, etc., soon. Marketing is King.

 

[jvincent]

1 hour ago, ThinkingPlus said:

I would think that pretty much all balls made since 1950 will fail.

All of the solid core balls would fail for sure.

 

I think the wound balls would probably compress too much at the really high club speeds.

 

Ignoring COR effects, it's really an aerodynamics game at this point. Increase the drag at top end tour level speeds of today and you can still end up with somebody potentially swinging faster in 5 years but it would at least contain the problem for a while.

[2bGood]

1 hour ago, jvincent said:

Yes and no.

 

Until you reach critical velocity faster swingers will always hit it further.

 

But golf ball drag is a function of speed, spin, dimple shape, etc. Right now the USGA does tests at a speed well below what the big hitters are capable of. So, if they change the total distance test conditions to better reflect what the top golfers are capable of the issue goes away.

 

IIRC the total distance limit of the test is 320 yards at a ball speed of 170 mph.  Just change the speed condition to 200 mph and keep the limit at 320 yards. Done.

 

Yes, all current balls will fail, but just give them a 5-year grace period before they are illegal.

Drag would be an interesting route to go down, exploiting the difference effect of turbulent flow to velocity and laminar flow to velocity using Reynolds model might be a way to have a more severe impact on faster ball speed (or slow speed hit into the wind). Keep in mind I only have 33% more physics training then BDC so I am just throwing out random sciencey words. 

 

I tend to thing there is lots a ways the engineers could achieve it, if given this challenge. Apparently Bridgestone and Srixon already have some prototypes and Bridgestone has been working with the USGA on this????

Edited September 23, 2020 by 2bGood