What's coming next from the USGA and R&A...

[Shilgy]

10 minutes ago, mahonie said:

 

Faldo sent Monty a large box of his balls before a Ryder cup (all stamped ‘FALDO’) and told him to practice like mad as that was the ball he was going to be playing in the foursomes. Monty was too scared to practice with them in case he lost them around Wentworth.

 

As for changing balls, I play the first ball I put my hand on when delving into the darker recesses of the ball pocket in my bag. Unless it’s a Titleist Velocity or Pinnacle, which I usually throw back into the trees if I find one (best place for them), I’ll play pretty much anything.

 

That might mean that I play 3 different balls on one hole if I’m being a little wayward 😂😳

Maybe you’re a little wayward because you’re playing so many different balls? ⚽️🏀⚾️🏐⛳️

[gvogel]

50 minutes ago, mahonie said:

With lower trajectory and tight heathland grass helping run out, I can assure you it was 25 yards.

 

I will say that the switch to the US ball wasn’t difficult. For one thing, it was so much easier to play with and control. The size differential doesn’t seem like much but after playing 1.62” all my life, the 1.68” felt like hitting a basketball after hitting a tennis ball if that makes sense.

 

Losing distance and adding control? 1.72” ball on its way?

That is David Feherty's solution.

[gvogel]

35 minutes ago, mahonie said:

 

Faldo sent Monty a large box of his balls before a Ryder cup (all stamped ‘FALDO’) and told him to practice like mad as that was the ball he was going to be playing in the foursomes. Monty was too scared to practice with them in case he lost them around Wentworth.

 

As for changing balls, I play the first ball I put my hand on when delving into the darker recesses of the ball pocket in my bag. Unless it’s a Titleist Velocity or Pinnacle, which I usually throw back into the trees if I find one (best place for them), I’ll play pretty much anything.

 

That might mean that I play 3 different balls on one hole if I’m being a little wayward 😂😳

I play Titleist AVX when going into the wind, and Pro V1X when going with the wind.  If it's not windy, I play Pro V1x as they carry farther.  If I am playing into the wind, I don't need help stopping the ball on the green.  I have played a Velocity effectively into the wind.

[smashdn]

19 hours ago, storm319 said:

Also, I have not seen anything supporting the idea that longer courses have helped shorter players (in reality they have not). What is being said is that rolling back driving distance on the already longer courses will harm players that are already at the bottom from an average distance standpoint more so than those at the top and we will end up exaggerating the player behavior "problem" that is perceived by some.

 

I've read just the opposite in the beginning when courses were first being lengthened.  To "combat the distance problem, the [PGA] courses were lengthened."  The thought being that the longer players would still have approach shots of a length that still offered a challenge.  A challenge that could have potentially been matched by a shorter hitter's ability to be more accurate with longer irons.  Clearly that didn't work and further widened the discrepancy of the ability to compete between the shorter drivers and the longer drivers week in and week out.

 

I have contended that at some approach distance the proximity to the hole starts to get really out of whack.  If you graphed it you would have relatively flat ends of the graphed data and a steep section some where about 140-170 yards of approach distance.  Below 140 yards the proximity is not demonstrably better the closer you get (no appreciable difference between 40 yard and 50 yard approach) nor the farther you get away from the hole past a certain yardage (no real difference in proximity when hitting from 210 versus 220).

 

 

 

Just a hypothesis but the driver distances now hit by the longest guys are, for the most part, on most golf courses and PGA event set-ups, leaving them approaches in the lower range of distance and thus not creating much differentiation between players (more wedges, 7i and 8i).  While the shorter hitters now 20-30-40 yards further back in the fairway, with longer clubs in their hands, are now in that range where A) there is more variability from results (the range of proximities is greater) and B) falls in the steeper portion of the curve where they could expect a worse proximity, leading to higher scoring.

 

So, I guess my point regarding behavior is this; distance has always been an advantage.  There are few golfers, if any, who would turn down an extra ten yards if they could keep their same accuracy/dispersion.  What checked that pursuit for extra distance in the past was the much higher potential to suffer poorer accuracy and increased dispersion.  My thought (unproven) is that there is some "magic distance threshold" where the separation value of approach shots within the field gets very small, you just can't hit it appreciably closer with a wedge than the average PGA field if you are the best wedge player (say average is 30 feet and you can hit it 27 feet, you are still going to 2 putt from 27 at about the same rate the field will 2 putt from 30, thus no real separation).  However, let's just say at 170 yards you are a sharpshooter and on average you leave it 35 feet and the field average leave is 50 foot, now you might be doing something. (Using SG theory you are 2.2 shots to hole out from 35 and the field is 2.9 from 50. < Those are made up numbers.)  But that only really helps you to be that good at 170 yards if a good portion of the field is also approaching it from 170 and not from 130 or 140 yards.  If you are 30-40 shorter off the tee that accuracy form 170 is going for naught.  Dispersion is less of an issue the shorter your approach.  You hit a wedge you can spin it, hit it high and/or stop it, even from most PGA Tour event roughs.  Accuracy is probably not directly inversely proportion in importance to distance but as distance increases, accuracy's importance is lessened.

 

I think it is sort of admirable (though maybe misguided) on the part of USGA to attempt to restore some sort of balance between the variables of distance and accuracy.  I don't think that it is a bad thing, just that they have very limited options at their disposal to affect that change, and that those options may not be the best or most palatable to the golfing public.  I know I find myself in the minority here in that I think accuracy has been diminished, even in my own game, by distance.  If my driver is off, none of the other parts really matter.  If my driver is on, the game is noticeably easier and scoring (relative to my "normal" scores) is markedly better.  Distance with marginal accuracy is better than accuracy with marginal distance.

[Shilgy]

@smashdn 

If my driver is on, the game is noticeably easier and scoring (relative to my "normal" scores) is markedly better.  Distance with marginal accuracy is better than accuracy with marginal distance.

 

Isnt that the way it has always been really? Going back to my persimmon and balata days it was that way and is that way now.

[storm319]

1 hour ago, mahonie said:

That’s quite funny when Titleist shelled out a load to Callaway and Bridgestone for nicking their patents to make the Pro V1 in the first place.

 

That is actually not true. Yes, Acushnet ended up having to license IP from Bridgestone following a loss in court, but that did not occur with Callaway.

 

Callaway filed suit against Acushnet based on IP that they acquired when they purchased Spalding's golf properties out of bankruptcy in 2003. A former Spalding employee who's name was on some of the contested patents ended up leaving for Titleist and was a key designer in some versions of the ProV1 around that time (I dont recall his name). Callaway won the initial lawsuit which was later overturned during the subsequent appeal. They ended up fighting in court for several years before agreeing to a joint licensing settlement of some of each others IP which put everything to rest. No court mandated damages and ultimately had very little impact.

[mahonie]

1 hour ago, gvogel said:

I play Titleist AVX when going into the wind, and Pro V1X when going with the wind.  If it's not windy, I play Pro V1x as they carry farther.  If I am playing into the wind, I don't need help stopping the ball on the green.  I have played a Velocity effectively into the wind.

 

Wilson Staff FG Tour are the best wind balls for me...Bridgestone Tour B XS for everything else. Velocity just seem ‘heavy’ ...not sure why 👍

[mahonie]

1 hour ago, gvogel said:

That is David Feherty's solution.

 

I did not know that... might have to change my thought process now 🤔

[mahonie]

1 hour ago, storm319 said:

 

That is actually not true. Yes, Acushnet ended up having to license IP from Bridgestone following a loss in court, but that did not occur with Callaway.

 

Callaway filed suit against Acushnet based on IP that they acquired when they purchased Spalding's golf properties out of bankruptcy in 2003. A former Spalding employee who's name was on some of the contested patents ended up leaving for Titleist and was a key designer in some versions of the ProV1 around that time (I dont recall his name). Callaway won the initial lawsuit which was later overturned during the subsequent appeal. They ended up fighting in court for several years before agreeing to a joint licensing settlement of some of each others IP which put everything to rest. No court mandated damages and ultimately had very little impact.

 

My bad...I’d forgotten that Titleist and Callaway settled out of court.

 

Iirc, and you may have to correct me again (!), Titleist tweaked the design of the Pro V1 so that it didn’t infringe on anyone’s patents...knowing that the competitive damage had already been done!

 

Titleist are still a bit sensitive where Bridgestone are concerned.

[smashdn]

2 hours ago, Shilgy said:

@smashdn 

If my driver is on, the game is noticeably easier and scoring (relative to my "normal" scores) is markedly better.  Distance with marginal accuracy is better than accuracy with marginal distance.

 

Isnt that the way it has always been really? Going back to my persimmon and balata days it was that way and is that way now.

 

Probably.  Especially the first part you quoted.  I can see the opposite with the second statement of mine you quoted, especially under certain conditions.

 

But there was also a time when a well struck 2 or 3 iron was more playable than a mishit driver.  You might string two really good shots in a row (a 2i or 3i in the fairway and a 4i or 5i approach) and it would trump an indifferent drive and fair 7i.  There was a real "second road to town" if you had to.  A deep dive into Zach Johnson's strategy for his 2007 Masters win kind of shows that second road, that, when executed, allows the cagey ball-striker to be on the same plane as the power guys.  That parity is somewhat lost.  Now cue the folks who will point out the Kevin Na wins, etc.  Look deep and those handful of events like that and they tend to have extenuating circumstances, namely a lack of the power guys in the field or sometimes it is an event held at a course that lacks a full four par fives or is just a tight track.  The rank and file PGA courses, the TPC - Vanilla Paste courses, don't often net you a "surprise" winner.

 

Dig up the old dead Scots who started the game and I bet they'd agree that a big charm of the sport is being crafty and maneuvering your ball better than the other guy and not just out driving him (match play charms).  When the gutty came around if you'll remember Old Tom and Allan Robertson had a serious falling out.  Distance is not a new thing for sure.  Maintaining the balance between distance and shot-making, maneuvering, whatever you want to call it is an old idea.  Maybe it is has just gotten much harder to maintain here lately?  Maybe we just don't care to?

Edited October 1, 2020 by smashdn
Clarified to address what was quoted more clearly.

[Sean2]

14 minutes ago, mahonie said:

 

My bad...I’d forgotten that Titleist and Callaway settled out of court.

 

Iirc, and you may have to correct me again (!), Titleist tweaked the design of the Pro V1 so that it didn’t infringe on anyone’s patents...knowing that the competitive damage had already been done!

 

Titleist are still a bit sensitive where Bridgestone are concerned.

And maybe Costco too? 🙂

[Shilgy]

10 minutes ago, Sean2 said:

And maybe Costco too? 🙂

None of the ball companies are concerned about Costco. 

[Sean2]

1 minute ago, Shilgy said:

None of the ball companies are concerned about Costco. 

It was kind of a joke, and if memory serves Titleist sued Costco a few years ago for violating upwards of 10 patents. 

[jons1]

Bryson wasn't the longest hitter in the field.  I think he was ranked 7th in driving distance.  He won the US Open because he was the best around and on the greens.  And further, the winning score was only -6.  Why are people freaking out?

[davep043]

Just now, jons1 said:

Bryson wasn't the longest hitter in the field.  I think he was ranked 7th in driving distance.  He won the US Open because he was the best around and on the greens.  And further, the winning score was only -6.  Why are people freaking out?

Because there's no golf going on featuring the best players, and the talking heads need something to get clicks and eyeballs.  Bryson is the current clickbait.

[Shilgy]

12 minutes ago, Sean2 said:

It was kind of a joke, and if memory serves Titleist sued Costco a few years ago for violating upwards of 10 patents. 

I thought you were joking but reading the Costco ball thread a while back there were those that seriously thought Costco had the big guys running scared.

[Mudguard]

32 minutes ago, jons1 said:

Bryson wasn't the longest hitter in the field.  I think he was ranked 7th in driving distance.  He won the US Open because he was the best around and on the greens.  And further, the winning score was only -6.  Why are people freaking out?

He's been the longest this year though. 

Remember the last time someone won Majors doing something different? Adam Scott, Keegan Bradley....

[storm319]

2 minutes ago, mahonie said:

 

My bad...I’d forgotten that Titleist and Callaway settled out of court.

 

Iirc, and you may have to correct me again (!), Titleist tweaked the design of the Pro V1 so that it didn’t infringe on anyone’s patents...knowing that the competitive damage had already been done!

 

Titleist are still a bit sensitive where Bridgestone are concerned.

 

If you take time to look at some of these golf ball related patents that have been granted in recent years you will notice many that overlap (in some cases with nearly identical abstracts). The reality in cases is that there are only so many ways to make a golf ball (all of the OEMs use the same basic production method for cores/mantles with only 2 variations on cover production) so a lot of this litigious behavior is more about disrupting market share than protecting innovation (not defending Acushnet, in fact they have actually been the most guilty of this in the past). 

 

22 minutes ago, Shilgy said:

I thought you were joking but reading the Costco ball thread a while back there were those that seriously thought Costco had the big guys running scared.

 

Acushnet's case was flimsy at best, but TaylorMade had a legitimate claim as the initial batch was rumored to be overrun cores/mantle assemblies from a previous TaylorMade model. Ultimately TaylorMade handled it the best which was via ultimatum to the factory producing the ball given that TaylorMade was their largest customer at the time. Not sure if they were scared, but Acushnet filing a lawsuit definitely points to feeling threatened at some level. 

 

[storm319]

24 minutes ago, Mudguard said:

He's been the longest this year though. 

Remember the last time someone won Majors doing something different? Adam Scott, Keegan Bradley....

 

Zack Johnson @ 2015 British Open

[Shilgy]

5 minutes ago, storm319 said:

 

If you take time to look at some of these golf ball related patents that have been granted in recent years you will notice many that overlap (in some cases with nearly identical abstracts). The reality in cases is that there are only so many ways to make a golf ball (all of the OEMs use the same basic production method for cores/mantles with only 2 variations on cover production) so a lot of this litigious behavior is more about disrupting market share than protecting innovation (not defending Acushnet, in fact they have actually been the most guilty of this in the past). 

 

 

Acushnet's case was flimsy at best, but TaylorMade had a legitimate claim as the initial batch was rumored to be overrun cores/mantle assemblies from a previous TaylorMade model. Ultimately TaylorMade handled it the best which was via ultimatum to the factory producing the ball given that TaylorMade was their largest customer at the time. Not sure if they were scared, but Acushnet filing a lawsuit definitely points to feeling threatened at some level. 

 

I read it a different way....

Had more typed but have no desire to get the Costco fans all riled up again like a couple years ago with the ksig thread lol.

[caniac6]

1 hour ago, jons1 said:

Bryson wasn't the longest hitter in the field.  I think he was ranked 7th in driving distance.  He won the US Open because he was the best around and on the greens.  And further, the winning score was only -6.  Why are people freaking out?

I think everybody is freaking out because Bryson is so different. His physical change, putting method, one length irons all are different from traditional methods. If anyone else had shot -6 during a US Open at Winged Foot, it would probably be considered one of the greatest US Open performances ever. Instead, Bryson overpowered the course, and turned it into a freak show. I really don't think he is getting the credit he deserves.

Edited October 1, 2020 by caniac6

[Shilgy]

18 minutes ago, caniac6 said:

I think everybody is freaking out because Bryson is so different. His physical change, putting method, one length irons all are different from traditional methods. If anyone else had shot -6 during a US Open at Winged Foot, it would probably be considered one of the greatest US Open performances ever. Instead, Bryson overpowered the course, and turned it into a freak show. I really don't think he is getting the credit he deserves.

I would agree with that...and add...if Bryson had a crap week at the US Open the same commentary would be applied to Matthew Wolff. 
That swing can’t be legal can it? Lol.

Edited October 1, 2020 by Shilgy

[mvhoffman]

He is simply going to pushy their rules to the max limit

[Soloman1]

OK, I've got it...

 

Bring back stymies and not just for match play.

[2bGood]

On 10/1/2020 at 11:08 AM, Shilgy said:

None of the ball companies are concerned about Costco. 

None of the wine companies were concerned about Costco. 

Edited October 4, 2020 by 2bGood

[mvhoffman]

I was listening to PGA Tour radio, and all of the "personalities" expressed what we have in this thread.  They have expressed that they believe something is going to happen.  Most of the consensus seemed to be that nothing will happen until after the Masters... This should be an interesting winter if the USGA/R&A decide to do something prior to the 2021 majors.

[gvogel]

23 minutes ago, mvhoffman said:

I was listening to PGA Tour radio, and all of the "personalities" expressed what we have in this thread.  They have expressed that they believe something is going to happen.  Most of the consensus seemed to be that nothing will happen until after the Masters... This should be an interesting winter if the USGA/R&A decide to do something prior to the 2021 majors.

What they will do is initiate studies with reduced distance balls, and probably scaled back drivers, with elite and regular players.  They will study this for a couple of years before they make any determination.  So don't expect a ball or club head roll back in the near future.

[gvogel]

I still think that the solution to the distance problem with elite players is to have two different equipment specs - today's and a reduced spec, whatever that might entail - ball, club head.  It doesn't have to be an all or none decision.

 

Elite players would play today's equipment in some events, and be required to play the reduced distance specs in other events.  I would assume that the US Open, the Open Championship and the Masters would be played with the reduced distance specs.  The reduced distance specs would be available for the PGA Tour to use in Mexico City, Las Vegas, and when they wanted to hold a championship on historic courses (like in Detroit).

 

Some players (I'm thinking Bryson) might decide to not play the reduced distance events.  Some other players (Matthew Fitzpatrick) might rarely play in events with today's equipment.  There are enough events in enough places for today's elite players to pick and choose.

[davep043]

58 minutes ago, mvhoffman said:

I was listening to PGA Tour radio, and all of the "personalities" expressed what we have in this thread.  They have expressed that they believe something is going to happen.  Most of the consensus seemed to be that nothing will happen until after the Masters... This should be an interesting winter if the USGA/R&A decide to do something prior to the 2021 majors.

Perhaps some of the talking heads should research what the USGA/R&A have said about the next steps and the schedule:

https://www.usga.org/content/usga/home-page/advancing-the-game/distance-insights.html

Quote

Given continued health concerns and the impact on golf worldwide, the USGA and The R&A are now targeting March 2021 for the release of equipment research topics.

Notice, "equipment research topics", which will include possible (voluntary) bifurcation through local rule, and re-evaluation of club and ball conformance specifications, per the Distance Insights Conclusions released back in February.  This is nothing new, Bryson is nothing new, the Ruling Bodies are most likely to follow the course they've laid out all along, its just been delayed due to COVID.

Talking heads make their living by attracting viewers or listeners, who in turn attract advertisers.  They'll attract a lot more by exaggerating the immediacy of the problem.  Telling people to wait and see what gets released in 5 months from now certainly isn't going to create a sense of urgency, and so isn't going to attract eyes and ears.

[mvhoffman]

So with all of this "reduced spec" talk and everything else, what will this account for with manufacturers?  Nobody has really addressed the fact that all of these companies would lose MILLIONS/BILLIONS in the long run.  If they regulate drivers, balls, you are looking at R&D money going out of the window.  I personally think that there will be something released and the lawsuits will start.  I think that all of these companies know something is coming and they are going to push the limits to the max while they can.