Ball Compression Limit - is it reasonable to regulate?

[karstens_ghost]

I keep seeing a lot about how the ruling bodies want to roll back distance. Is it reasonable to do so by adding a "maximum compression" rating, or is that unreasonable?

[sui generis]

6 hours ago, karstens_ghost said:

I keep seeing a lot about how the ruling bodies want to roll back distance. Is it reasonable to do so by adding a "maximum compression" rating, or is that unreasonable?

 

An easy way to cut back distance would be to spec a lighter golf ball. 

[North Butte]

If you want to regulate the distance that a golf ball flies, make a rule saying how far the golf ball can fly. Rule makers thinking they can outsmart the cleverest engineers in an entire industry by making some random change in golf ball specs that will indirectly produce shorter distances is completely delusional. 

 

I suggest a PGA Tour only local rule. If you hit a shot that travels more than 300 yards it's a 2-stroke penalty. 

Then leave the rest of us the heck alone. 

 

P.S. The distance the ball can travel is already regulated. It's not a matter of making new rules, just specify a shorter distance in the existing rule.

Edited May 28, 2022 by North Butte

[DaveLeeNC]

22 minutes ago, North Butte said:

If you want to regulate the distance that a golf ball flies, make a rule saying how far the golf ball can fly. Rule makers thinking they can outsmart the cleverest engineers in an entire industry by making some random change in golf ball specs that will indirectly produce shorter distances is completely delusional. 

 

I suggest a PGA Tour only local rule. If you hit a shot that travels more than 300 yards it's a 2-stroke penalty. 

Then leave the rest of us the heck alone. 

 

P.S. The distance the ball can travel is already regulated. It's not a matter of making new rules, just specify a shorter distance in the existing rule.

Which RULE are you referring to here about golf ball DISTANCE?  dave

[North Butte]

6 minutes ago, DaveLeeNC said:

Which RULE are you referring to here about golf ball DISTANCE?  dave

The link below gives an overview of the current golf ball distance limits and testing procedures, along with some possible updates on their horizon. 

 

Latest USGA Thinking on Golf Ball Distance

[DaveLeeNC]

24 minutes ago, North Butte said:

The link below gives an overview of the current golf ball distance limits and testing procedures, along with some possible updates on their horizon. 

 

Latest USGA Thinking on Golf Ball Distance

Since this is a RULES group...  there is no DISTANCE RULE. However such a thing is an area of interest (which is what you linked). dave

[storm319]

38 minutes ago, DaveLeeNC said:

Which RULE are you referring to here about golf ball DISTANCE?  dave

The ODS regulation introduced in 1976. The USGA has already submitted two areas of interest related to modifying the current test conditions and based on the language it will be global (will not use a MLR). There really is no point in regulating any physical attributes of the ball with this catch all regulation.

 

https://www.usga.org/content/dam/usga/pdf/2019/equipment-standards/TPX3006 Overall Distance and Symmetry Test Protocol.pdf

 

https://www.usga.org/content/dam/usga/pdf/2022/AoI_Overall_Distance_Standard Final_03142022.pdf

[DaveLeeNC]

I am traveling right now so my research abilities are limited. Are there rules in place that measure how far a ball fles when struck with some standard conditions? If so then I stand corrected.  Thanks.  dave

[larrybud]

10 minutes ago, DaveLeeNC said:

I am traveling right now so my research abilities are limited. Are there rules in place that measure how far a ball fles when struck with some standard conditions? If so then I stand corrected.  Thanks.  dave

 

Yes, there are COR rules in place for a ball. COR = Coefficient of restitution.

[DaveLeeNC]

COR is not distance and is a property of a collision between two objects.  dave

[North Butte]

From the USGA document linked above...

 

Quote

There is interest in considering a launch speed which would be determined at a clubhead speed of at least 125 mph such that the ball’s total distance is optimized at conditions that represent the longest drivers of the golf ball, as noted above. The value obtained from testing at these conditions would be used to determine the conformance of the ball against the current limit of 317 yards plus the current testing tolerance of 3 yards

 

USGA has been regulating golf ball distance for longer than I've been playing golf. The testing methods and associated limits have evolved considerably since those earliest ODS specifications. 

 

For at least as long as we're all willing to let USGA set equipment rules, they have total control over how far the ball flies. It's up to them to specify the particulars but they could certainly throttle back the ball any time they like (again, as long as it doesn't result in people ignoring them). 

[jj9000]

Or they could just leave it alone.

 

What specific problem are we trying to solve, and why?

 

You dial the ball back and you're going to hurt the short hitters more than the long hitters.

[Mr. Bean]

11 hours ago, karstens_ghost said:

I keep seeing a lot about how the ruling bodies want to roll back distance. Is it reasonable to do so by adding a "maximum compression" rating, or is that unreasonable?

 

It is reasonable. Thank you for asking.

[Fuscinator]

Why not just put windmills in the middle of the fairways, or beech/oak/chestnut trees?

[larrybud]

9 hours ago, DaveLeeNC said:

COR is not distance and is a property of a collision between two objects.  dave

 

A ball struck with the same variables has it's ball speed limited because of the COR limits (on both the ball and clubhead), thus the distance is automatically limited.

[rogolf]

8 hours ago, jj9000 said:

Or they could just leave it alone.

 

What specific problem are we trying to solve, and why?

 

You dial the ball back and you're going to hurt the short hitters more than the long hitters.

Is that a problem?  There are short hitters and long hitters, always have been, always will be.  Golf is a challenging game for both, those that adapt best to their competencies will succeed.

[storm319]

1 hour ago, larrybud said:

 

A ball struck with the same variables has it's ball speed limited because of the COR limits (on both the ball and clubhead), thus the distance is automatically limited.

The USGA does not have an explicit COR limit for the golf ball. However, the ball velocity limit is very similar concept to the COR cannon test that was used on clubs. Both are effectively limiting speed efficiency.

[bobfoster]

11 hours ago, jj9000 said:

Or they could just leave it alone.

 

What specific problem are we trying to solve, and why?

 

You dial the ball back and you're going to hurt the short hitters more than the long hitters.

 

 

[Another Bob TL;DR, and only rules geeks will bother, but have thought a lot about this.]

 

Actually, that's an interesting point. Short hitter might be hurt more, or just equally, depending on exactly how you dial it back. The question is whether a rules change would affect golfers in absolute terms (e.g., both long and short hitters lose 20 yards), or proportionately (e.g., both have their distances reduced by 10%). 

 

Bigger picture though, there are limits on balls and clubs (that have evolved over time). Trouble is (IMO) over the last 15-20 years, a lot more golfers hit the gym, and (most significantly) the technology that can be used to analyze and adjust swing mechanics has advanced to almost an unbelievable degree. The first, most rudimentary swing monitor (Swing Dynamics) wasn't introduced until the mid 90s, and for the first few years even a lot of pros didn't use them much. 

 

These days, even amateurs in retail golf stores can get fitted for clubs with devices that measure multiple variables, some of which didn't even have freaking names in the Jack/Arnie era. At the pro level, the existence of even more sophisticated technology - combined with swing coaches that can make use of it - means any golfer with a lot of talent can absolutely optimize whatever swing best suits their body type, and find whatever club/shaft combo that optimizes that swing. 

 

Difficult to overestimate how gigantic of a change this is (historically speaking). This year is the 150th anniversary of The Open, and it is really just in the last 15 years that science and technology have almost revolutionized golf. Golf has probably changed more in the last decade than it did in the entire half century preceding it.

 

So, with this as a backstory, the answer to your question "What specific problem are we trying to solve, and why?" is this: The USGA/R&A started getting worried about distances in the mid-aughts, when the term "Tiger-proofing" was born. He startled the world of pro golf, but a lot of players soon followed. In fact, the wedge groove rule (introduced in 2010) was the first attempt to deal with the "bomb and gouge" approach to the game. Various other things have been tried, but really have had minimal effect. 

 

The specific problem is that too many courses - especially those that hope to host tourneys -  are feeling like they have to make major changes to lengthen their tracks to try to defend against the increasingly hyper-optimized swings. A lot of the par 4s of the 90s would almost be drivable by today's pros, a lot of the par 5s of that era would just be slightly long par 4s today. And this has trickled down to even the amateur level. I'll go out and play my local courses on weekends, and it is now almost common to see guys that can hit a 300 yard drive - something that would have been an extremely rare anomaly 20 years ago is now almost normal

 

They aren't necessarily better mind you, just a lot longer - in fact, arguably, some are a lot worse - a 250' slice is in the second cut, a 300' miss is deep in the woods ... the longer you hit it, the greater the effects of a bad swing. My business partner is like that ... doesn't play often and is truly terrible, but really long. Laugh at him - 300' drives - 150' out, 150' right. He's usually in the fairway, its just often not the fairway of the hole he's actually playing. But that's another topic.

 

One of my favorite local public courses - built in the 50s - just sunk a bunch of coin into buying land and adding about 375'. It was never that long of a course (though it is extremely interesting - long is by no means synonymous with interesting ... played the Blue Monster years ago, pretty much the most boring course I ever played - my little local track makes me use almost every club and every draw/fade in my bag). Good friends with the owner. Told me he was starting to get afraid that some of his better golfers would start seeing it as more like a long executive course instead of a "real" golf course. So it is not just the USGA and PGAT courses that distance is affecting.

 

But lengthening courses not only costs a lot to do, in also results in higher annual maintenance costs. This started slightly disturbing the rules bodies in the aughts, concerns that gradually increased in the the 20 teens - and at this point, distance worries have been sort of front-burnered. They consider it to be a problem that really needs to be affirmatively addressed over the next couple years.

 

This is obviously just my perception. Think there's a bit of truth to it however.

Edited May 29, 2022 by bobfoster

[jj9000]

8 minutes ago, bobfoster said:

 

 

[Another Bob TL;DR, and only rules geeks will bother, but have thought a lot about this.]

 

Bob...I read your entire post, and it was a well thought response.  I deleted most of the text so my post wouldn't take up more space.  The points you've made are valid.  But, in my opinion the easier solution to combating distance (if it's even a legitimate problem) is growing the rough and making hitting fairways a premium.  No additional space is needed.  Remember when these bomb and gougers we're supposed to overpower a short Merion course?  Not so fast.  They don't have to change anything equipment-wise to get their desired results.  Player wants to bomb and gouge, that's fine, just be prepared to hack out of some really think rough when you gouge.

 

[bobfoster]

1 hour ago, jj9000 said:

 

Bob...I read your entire post, and it was a well thought response.  I deleted most of the text so my post wouldn't take up more space.  The points you've made are valid.  But, in my opinion the easier solution to combating distance (if it's even a legitimate problem) is growing the rough and making hitting fairways a premium.  No additional space is needed.  Remember when these bomb and gougers we're supposed to overpower a short Merion course?  Not so fast.  They don't have to change anything equipment-wise to get their desired results.  Player wants to bomb and gouge, that's fine, just be prepared to hack out of some really think rough when you gouge.

 

Must say, agree w/ you 100%. Was trying to answer the guy and explain the viewpoint of the rules bodies, and course owners, and why they have come to the conclusions they did. Both the rules bodies, and course owners (not just the rare few that run PGAT events, but even just average courses) perceive distance as a problem. 

 

To dive deeper into the weeds, both the rules bodies and course owners are quite restricted in what they can do. The USGA/R&A can only fiddle with equipment rules (e.g., they couldn't require courses to hit some specific standards of distance, or rough height or whatever, there are just too many vastly varied courses in the world - e.g., I've played courses in Texas that literally couldn't grow 3" rough in the hot summer). 

 

I got the intent of the groove rule, but always thought it was stupid. And was right. Golfers adjusted. I'm watching today's pros doing incredible things with wedges today - commonly hitting them with far more precision than anything I saw in 2000. These guys adapted, and are getting better and better. 

 

The current thinking seems to be to fiddle with the ball. Not thinking that would do much to address "the (perceived) problem" either. The changes would need to be serious. A change that reduced average drives by 20' wouldn't stop courses from feeling like they needed to lengthen. A change that reduced them by 50' would, but would be almost be unthinkably dramatic - and golf is pretty conservative, the USGA/R&A generally changes in increments, they don't want a rule to fundamentally change the nature of the game. But the rules bodies can only mess with equipment rules.

 

Likewise, course owners can't do anything about equipment rules, they only have control over their courses. They currently are feeling pressure to lengthen (as my friend so bluntly said to me), and they will likely need to at least a little over time. Even the average amateur golfer is simply longer than the average was 20 years ago. But that can be mitigated. There's a lot of variables on courses. For instance, when my buddy added distance, he also made major changes to traps. Guys were easily flying sand that was in play 20 years ago. His new traps are definitely in play. He changed the angles on the tee boxes of a couple holes - so one hole that had water that only came into play if you hooked it turned into a risk/reward choice if you wanted to challenge it. 

 

So, politically, both the rules bodies and course owners are feeling the need to adjust to the fact that distances have increased. They just have. But they are both restricted in the (very different) specific means they can use to address that. 

 

IMO, course owners have a much greater ability to tweak course variables in a meaningful way than the rules bodies do in tweaking equipment. The longest courses on the PGAT are by no means the hardest. You can seriously toughen a course without necessarily adding that much distance to it. 

 

Last time I played my friend's course in October 2021 I shot 79. First time I played it post re-fit I shot 93. Had a beer with him after, said "what the living hell did you do?!!!". He said, "like it?". Could only say "you nailed it dude - even though I had a David Hasselhoff day at the beach". 

 

Point is, it really wasn't the added distance alone, it was adding the distance but reconfiguring where the trouble was. 

 

Bottom line (just my opinion) the USAGA/R&A are likely to issue new rules this year or next year to address the fact that even the average golfer (let alone the pros) is simply hitting it longer. They believe they have to. But the actual solution is going to come from the creativity of course owners and designers. And it will not be just about distance. 

 

Good grief, another TL;DR.

 

 

Edited May 29, 2022 by bobfoster

[karstens_ghost]

The main reason I'm asking is that if, for example, golf balls starting in 2025 must be a maximum of 65 to be conforming...

 

If you did that, the amateur probably wouldn't notice. The low-capper that hits a long ball would have a harder time hitting it as far, and while it's not exactly balata, would work towards limiting the obsolescence of older courses.

 

The balls change every year, so why not work with that instead of manipulate equipment rules? Personally, I'm holding off on buying any equipment until we get an announcement - so thanks USGA/R&A… manufacturers are surely loving this /s.

[North Butte]

Do you simply want balls to be softer? Or do you want the guys playing on TV to hit it shorter.

The OEMs will 100% find a way to get back any distance you think you're eliminating by introducing a "compression" spec. It simply will not, in the long term, reduce the distance the guys on TV hit shots.

 

Right now USGA legislates that a ball (simplifying slightly) that is hit at 120mph can fly no more than 317 yards. They could change that spec tomorrow to say a ball hit at 130mh can fly no more 297 yards. Not by fiddling around with "compression" but by simply lowering the distance limit.

 

And in any case, there's not even any standard definition of what "65 compression" means or how it's measured. Compression is a marketing term. 

Edited May 29, 2022 by North Butte

[Mr. Bean]

8 hours ago, jj9000 said:

But, in my opinion the easier solution to combating distance (if it's even a legitimate problem) is growing the rough and making hitting fairways a premium.  No additional space is needed.  

 

 

That suits fine for courses where there are no or very few players months before a competition but what about the courses where there are 300 recreational golfers playing every day before the competition? Narrowing fairways and increasing the rough height would mean those courses would lose their customers. Then there are certain types of links courses where not much can be done as there are no rough but long grass that is there already.

 

On the main tours this rough thing has been used but top pros hit amazing shot from the thick rough so it did not seem to have the desired effect as other means are to be taken into use.

[North Butte]

Amazing how quickly people forget the wedge groove rule fiasco. USGA's galaxy brains decided if they just made everyone change to less effective wedge grooves then hitting out the rough would be harder then the guys on TV would be so scared of missing fairways they'd start laying up or steering the ball into the fairway, thereby solving the so-called "problem" of so-called "bomb and gouge".

Of course no such thing happened. Wedge and ball OEMs tweaked their designs to get back most of the lost spin and in any case the guys on TV kept on swinging faster and faster. 

Edited May 29, 2022 by North Butte

[storm319]

5 hours ago, karstens_ghost said:

The main reason I'm asking is that if, for example, golf balls starting in 2025 must be a maximum of 65 to be conforming...

 

If you did that, the amateur probably wouldn't notice. The low-capper that hits a long ball would have a harder time hitting it as far, and while it's not exactly balata, would work towards limiting the obsolescence of older courses.

 

The balls change every year, so why not work with that instead of manipulate equipment rules? Personally, I'm holding off on buying any equipment until we get an announcement - so thanks USGA/R&A… manufacturers are surely loving this /s.

It won’t be a drastic enough reduction at the highest levels and OEMs will be able to find ways to make up the speed loss with material advancement. Additionally, lower compression usually correlated to lower spin so high speed players will undoubtably adapt launch conditions to make up for some of the losses. Given that the ODS already exists and is a much better catch all regulation with respect to distance, it is almost guaranteed that will be the approach the USGA takes with ball regulation indefinitely.

[North Butte]

The whole discussion is kind of like saying people drive too fast on the Interstate so maybe we ought to limit cars to having 4 cylinders.

[Purple Toupee]

52 minutes ago, North Butte said:

The whole discussion is kind of like saying people drive too fast on the Interstate so maybe we ought to limit cars to having 4 cylinders.

If driving on the interstate was a sport, then yes it might need to be done.  Much like NASCAR limits the speed on their cars.

[karstens_ghost]

Fair enough. It seemed like an obvious way to not affect most players, but have the desired effect on the bombers.

 

FWIW, yes, it would lower spin… and the bombers might not lose a lot of distance, but they would lose _control_ a bit more - and that could be just as good.

[Shilgy]

On 5/28/2022 at 6:57 PM, jj9000 said:

 

Bob...I read your entire post, and it was a well thought response.  I deleted most of the text so my post wouldn't take up more space.  The points you've made are valid.  But, in my opinion the easier solution to combating distance (if it's even a legitimate problem) is growing the rough and making hitting fairways a premium.  No additional space is needed.  Remember when these bomb and gougers we're supposed to overpower a short Merion course?  Not so fast.  They don't have to change anything equipment-wise to get their desired results.  Player wants to bomb and gouge, that's fine, just be prepared to hack out of some really think rough when you gouge.

 

Did you happen to watch the US Open at Winged Foot a couple years ago? They essentially tried your suggestion….narrow fairways and deep rough.  Know who dominated?  Bombers.  If you narrow the fairways then no one can reliably hit them.  So you may as well hit is as far as possible to have a shorter iron in that you can hit from the rough.

 

edited to add…..there really is no way to make the short hitters more relevant.  The driving distance is not rising as much on tour as people seem to fear.  But the tour average goes up because there are simply more long hitters.  And if the guy averaging 305 off the tee has the same skills in the rest of the game as the averaging 285 does who will be better?

Edited May 30, 2022 by Shilgy

[jj9000]

8 minutes ago, Shilgy said:

edited to add…..there really is no way to make the short hitters note relevant.  The driving distance is not rising as much on tour as people seem to fear.  But the tour average goes up because there are simply more long hitters.  And if the guy averaging 305 off the tee has the same skills in the rest of the game as the averaging 285 does who will be better?

 

Agreed here.  Which is why I asked the question of what they're really trying to solve.  Is distance really an issue,nor a perceived issue?  I'm watching a relatively short Colonial course have it's way with these guys (wind assisted).