USGA and R&A announce proposal to limit golf ball performance for elite level competition

[Pnwpingi210]

8 minutes ago, Simpsonia said:

 

 

So, hypothetically, if say in 2034 after the rollback has been in place for a while, that the field continues to work out, young long guys replace the older shorter guys etc, and the field average has continued to grow due to these non-equipment factors, to a place above where we're currently at, say that the average is now 305 yards off the tee, you're completely ok with that? Or are you looking to implement another rollback (or multiple rollbacks) to bring back the "historical landing" zones as smashdn might advocate? 

I think they will look to bring the tour average back into 280-295 range and keep the leader around 305-310.

[Simpsonia]

16 minutes ago, Pnwpingi210 said:

I think they will look to bring the tour average back into 280-295 range and keep the leader around 305-310.

 

Ok so your answer would be that you want continued rollbacks, hit those numbers hell or highwater? 

 

What happens if the leaders keep getting reigned in through these rollbacks, but through natural selection of new players on tour that we end up getting a situation where the leader hits it 310, but the field average is now 305? Do you roll it back so that now nobody can clear the hazards? Because once the range between the leader and the field compresses that much, you have some real choices to make. 

Edited April 18 by Simpsonia

[Pnwpingi210]

12 minutes ago, Simpsonia said:

 

Ok so your answer would be that you want continued rollbacks, hit those numbers hell or highwater? 

 

What happens if the leaders keep getting reigned in through these rollbacks, but through natural selection of new players on tour that we end up getting a situation where the leader hits it 310, but the field average is now 305? Do you roll it back so that now nobody can clear the hazards? Because once the range between the leader and the field compresses that much, you have some real choices to make. 

I think that’s what the ruling bodies want, I don’t want continued roll backs.

  
I personally don’t care.  I will watch and play golf either way.  It’s a game.

[bekgolf]

3 hours ago, Simpsonia said:

 

Ok so your answer would be that you want continued rollbacks, hit those numbers hell or highwater? 

 

What happens if the leaders keep getting reigned in through these rollbacks, but through natural selection of new players on tour that we end up getting a situation where the leader hits it 310, but the field average is now 305? Do you roll it back so that now nobody can clear the hazards? Because once the range between the leader and the field compresses that much, you have some real choices to make. 

 

It would make for a boring show with everyone hitting it the same distance and there being no risk of going offline. 

 

Professional golf is the best it's ever been and an amateur ruling body thinks the game is too easy when compared to the days of old so everyone must pay.  I'm still not on board with giving the USGA this much authority. 

 

All it would take is for the PGA to make their own rules and maintain a handicap index system.  Just like that there would be no reason for the USGA to exist.

 

The USGA should serve it's members, not just a select minority of them.

[maamold]

6 hours ago, Simpsonia said:

 

 

So, hypothetically, if say in 2034 after the rollback has been in place for a while, that the field continues to work out, young long guys replace the older shorter guys etc, and the field average has continued to grow due to these non-equipment factors, to a place above where we're currently at, say that the average is now 305 yards off the tee, you're completely ok with that? Or are you looking to implement another rollback (or multiple rollbacks) to bring back the "historical landing" zones as smashdn might advocate? 

The USGA has said that they may take another look as time goes on.

I put the game and the courses higher on the pedestal than myself, I'm nothing when it comes to this game - so if, in order to preserve and protect the game I love, the ball needs to be slowed down, or made to spin more or COR/CT is slowed down then that is fine with me. 

[smashdn]

7 minutes ago, radiman said:

That’s fair. Do you think that would help or hurt the game overall?

 

Hard for me to say.  There is a lot of pieces that encompass "the game."

 

In one respect, that of people trying to emulate what the pros do (and emulate the conditions where they play for that matter), I think a pretty clear division is not a bad thing.  I don't see many company league slow pitch softball players operating under the guise that they are doing the same thing as MLB players.

 

7 minutes ago, radiman said:

Would pro golf be a better product for its average viewer?

 

I really think the change, the optics of the change, would be largely imperceptible by the average viewer,  UNLESS the announcers have an axe to grind and really hammer it home that Rory is only driving the ball 305 instead of his normal 325 and now has to contend with something he wasn't the prior year.

 

7 minutes ago, radiman said:

Having such a large disparity between the recreational and amateur game? 

 

Not sure what you are getting at here?  Maybe you mean a disparity between the professional and recreational game?  If so, I have said before, golfers are asked to make adjustments all the time in the game.  Altitude, shot from fairway vs rough, down grain, with the grain, above your feet, below your feet, etc.  I really don't think it will be that big of a change to make.  There are also guys that pick up a new driver and maybe hit it for one range session before they put it in play.  Putters are even more likely to just be grabbed and pressed into service though that is a bit of a different animal compared to a full swing club.

 

Obviously, I am not a professional but I can move back and forth between my modern set of clubs and the old persimmons and blades that are weaker lofts and still post about the same scores.  With the old stuff I am hitting more club into greens and having to allow for more release.  Par fives are most all three shot holes unless I pure a drive.  I don't have anything less than 54* in that old set so I am not hitting many pitches of the one hop and stop variety.  Plus the grooves are washed out in them.

[smashdn]

17 hours ago, betarhoalphadelta said:

 

I understand the physics. I'm an engineer. You can't spell geek without a EE 😉

 

What I don't understand is someone quantifying the amount of distance that a 90 mph swinger will lose based on balls that haven't been invented yet, including saying that they won't lose anything on irons. So I'd like to see the data. 

 

I do understand the fact that drag increases with the square of velocity. Therefore I think it's plausible that distance loss isn't going to be perfectly linear. 

 

But consider two hypotheticals:

1. 115 mph swinger loses 10%, 100 mph swinger loses 3%, 85 mph swinger loses 0.5%.
2. 115 mph swinger loses 10%, 100 mph swinger loses 9%, 85 mph swinger loses 8%. 

I think it would be useful to have some actual data on this.

 

If such data exists, the USGA/R&A haven't provided it. 

 

This is just me spit-balling, but the OEM's may not want or may even have an agreement with the USGA/R&A to not let the results of the tests be public knowledge.  It would undermine much of their marketing claims about which ball is longest.

 

Whan said that there are balls out there today that conform to the new standard.  Read between the lines a little and you could come to the conclusion that there are balls that aren't engineered to be as "good" as they legally can be, depending upon how you view "good."

 

If one had access to an Iron Byron, we could replicate the test parameters and do our own ball study with the balls, time and space to do so.  The protocol is published.

 

---

I don't know the science of why when you start looking for "best golf ball for slow swing players" you get results of mostly very soft compression balls, sub 70 compression balls (though I do not think that there is a standard for measuring compression across the brands).  You can even find "soft" compression balls with a urethane cover, so theoretically a "tour" ball construction (cover material-wise) but in a ball optimized for slower swing speeds (or for someone who wants a really soft-feeling ball).  But the tour pros aren't using that type ball.

 

My point here is three fold.  1) Balls (likely) already exist that conform to the new standard and I bet it is the cheaper and softer balls most amateurs should be playing, 2) because of that, they likely will not see an appreciable difference or a difference at all and 3) with that being the case, the ball roll back is likely only going to affect those using those higher compression tour balls (see any list of "longest" ball test to get an idea which ones) which is who the rollback is intended to impact anyway.

[radiman]

42 minutes ago, smashdn said:

Not sure what you are getting at here?  Maybe you mean a disparity between the professional and recreational game?  If so, I have said before, golfers are asked to make adjustments all the time in the game.  Altitude, shot from fairway vs rough, down grain, with the grain, above your feet, below your feet, etc.  I really don't think it will be that big of a change to make.  There are also guys that pick up a new driver and maybe hit it for one range session before they put it in play.  Putters are even more likely to just be grabbed and pressed into service though that is a bit of a different animal compared to a full swing club

This was in response to your dream of putting the pro game back to 1980's and earlier.  It would be a massive difference between the game the pros play and ams.  That is the disparity.  That kind of rollback would 100% be noticeable.  And, the distances that the pros play in those conditions could easily be replicated or bested by a lot of amateurs I know. 

 

But, it's all hypothetical.  Just basically saying that if it's something that is going to happen.  If that is truly the goal of all of this, it will have to be so incremental.  

 

I have played in a couple of throwback events.  Nothing allowed that was newer than the 70's I believe was the criteria.  Even balata balls (those could be newer than 70's due to lack of availability).  It was an absolutely massive difference in distances.  I have hit persimmon drivers with the modern ball and while shorter, it was definitely a lot longer than with a balata. 

[Simpsonia]

45 minutes ago, smashdn said:

 

This is just me spit-balling, but the OEM's may not want or may even have an agreement with the USGA/R&A to not let the results of the tests be public knowledge.  It would undermine much of their marketing claims about which ball is longest.

 

Whan said that there are balls out there today that conform to the new standard.  Read between the lines a little and you could come to the conclusion that there are balls that aren't engineered to be as "good" as they legally can be, depending upon how you view "good."

 

If one had access to an Iron Byron, we could replicate the test parameters and do our own ball study with the balls, time and space to do so.  The protocol is published.

 

---

I don't know the science of why when you start looking for "best golf ball for slow swing players" you get results of mostly very soft compression balls, sub 70 compression balls (though I do not think that there is a standard for measuring compression across the brands).  You can even find "soft" compression balls with a urethane cover, so theoretically a "tour" ball construction (cover material-wise) but in a ball optimized for slower swing speeds (or for someone who wants a really soft-feeling ball).  But the tour pros aren't using that type ball.

 

My point here is three fold.  1) Balls (likely) already exist that conform to the new standard and I bet it is the cheaper and softer balls most amateurs should be playing, 2) because of that, they likely will not see an appreciable difference or a difference at all and 3) with that being the case, the ball roll back is likely only going to affect those using those higher compression tour balls (see any list of "longest" ball test to get an idea which ones) which is who the rollback is intended to impact anyway.

 

Because as our resident expert @ThinkingPlus has pointed out multiple times in this thread, all of the "conventional wisdom" around low compression balls is all marketing bullxxxx. Actual robot testing has shown that premium high-compression balls are better for all swing speeds, including low swing speeds. To be honest, the only reason I can think of why low swing speed players prefer low compression balls is, despite objectively worse performance, is it's just a feel thing. A high-compression ball could potentially feel 'clicky' or hard when struck with a low swing speed, so people might prefer the marshmallows just so they get that soft feeling off the face, even if they get objectively worse performance. 

 

Edit: seriously check out the annual golf ball evaluation done with robot testing on another espionage themed golf website. The only reason that soft balls can even possibly keep up in distance (and they still can't fully match high-compression balls in ballspeed) is because they spin far less. That low spin is very detrimental when it comes to approach and around the green play. 

Edited April 19 by Simpsonia

[Pnwpingi210]

26 minutes ago, Simpsonia said:

 

Because as our resident expert @ThinkingPlus has pointed out multiple times in this thread, all of the "conventional wisdom" around low compression balls is all marketing bullxxxx. Actual robot testing has shown that premium high-compression balls are better for all swing speeds, including low swing speeds. To be honest, the only reason I can think of why low swing speed players prefer low compression balls is, despite objectively worse performance, is it's just a feel thing. A high-compression ball could potentially feel 'clicky' or hard when struck with a low swing speed, so people might prefer the marshmallows just so they get that soft feeling off the face, even if they get objectively worse performance. 

 

Edit: seriously check out the annual golf ball evaluation done with robot testing on another espionage themed golf website. The only reason that soft balls can even possibly keep up in distance (and they still can't fully match high-compression balls in ballspeed) is because they spin far less. That low spin is very detrimental when it comes to approach and around the green play. 

You nailed it.  Spin management is why low compression balls can perform better for some players.  Particularly those that struggle with out to in paths and open face angles or high dynamic loft.  

I also see and agree with your choice to not directly link a competitors website and data in this thread 🙂

Edited April 19 by Pnwpingi210

[betarhoalphadelta]

1 hour ago, smashdn said:

 

Whan said that there are balls out there today that conform to the new standard.  Read between the lines a little and you could come to the conclusion that there are balls that aren't engineered to be as "good" as they legally can be, depending upon how you view "good."

 

If one had access to an Iron Byron, we could replicate the test parameters and do our own ball study with the balls, time and space to do so.  The protocol is published.

 

 

@Simpsonia beat me to the punch in discussing soft balls. There is data suggesting that those balls are in fact NOT better for most slower swingers. Higher compression balls are longer off the driver, and spin more off the irons, even for the 85 mph driver swingers out there. Based on that testing, I don't know why a slow swinger would ever use a marshmallow. I'd love to dig into why this [possible] myth is being perpetuated, even by the ball OEMs. I've got some theories but don't know for certain. 

 

However, that is also why we can't use robot testing based upon those balls to know what the outcome will be for new "premium" balls that meet the new standards. We already know marshmallows are slow for ball speed and low for spin. If the end result of this rollback is that we all play marshmallows, then it'll be even worse than I thought. If the end result of this rollback is that they create premium high-compression balls with good characteristics and they're just shorter, any robot testing we do on conforming balls now will be irrelevant because the new balls won't behave like those. 

 

[Pnwpingi210]

14 minutes ago, betarhoalphadelta said:

 

@Simpsonia beat me to the punch in discussing soft balls. There is data suggesting that those balls are in fact NOT better for most slower swingers. Higher compression balls are longer off the driver, and spin more off the irons, even for the 85 mph driver swingers out there. Based on that testing, I don't know why a slow swinger would ever use a marshmallow. I'd love to dig into why this [possible] myth is being perpetuated, even by the ball OEMs. I've got some theories but don't know for certain. 

 

However, that is also why we can't use robot testing based upon those balls to know what the outcome will be for new "premium" balls that meet the new standards. We already know marshmallows are slow for ball speed and low for spin. If the end result of this rollback is that we all play marshmallows, then it'll be even worse than I thought. If the end result of this rollback is that they create premium high-compression balls with good characteristics and they're just shorter, any robot testing we do on conforming balls now will be irrelevant because the new balls won't behave like those. 

 

Some players need the spin management low compression balls provide. 

[betarhoalphadelta]

41 minutes ago, Pnwpingi210 said:

Some players need the spin management low compression balls provide. 

 

Sure, maybe some do. 

 

My understanding is that high spin correlates strongly with high speed, and most of the players who are too high on the spin AND have high speed try to find the lower-spinning high compression balls. Think ProV1x Left Dash not Callaway Supersoft. 

 

I don't know how many slower players really need to keep the spin down. But maybe they exist. But I think usually lower speed players need more spin to hold greens with an iron, and therefore would benefit from high compression balls. 

[Pnwpingi210]

Just now, betarhoalphadelta said:

 

Sure, maybe some do. 

 

My understanding is that high spin correlates strongly with high speed, and most of the players who are too high on the spin AND have high speed try to find the lower-spinning high compression balls. Think ProV1x Left Dash not Callaway Supersoft. 

 

I don't know how many slower players really need to keep the spin down. But maybe they exist. But I think usually lower speed players need more spin to hold greens with an iron, and therefore would benefit from high compression balls. 

I hear what you are saying.   Since we don’t have launch monitor data from on course play for most players , and we know that a vast majority of golfers don’t get fitted for equipment, we won’t have any data to to support a position on this.

 

Anecdotally, a lot of golfers (call them group a) have out to in paths with open club faces (think classic over the top).   A lower compression ball will likely curve less and give them more distance, both off the tee and with irons due to the reduction of spin.   You are correct the faster they swing the more spin they generate.  They also don’t have the club dynamics or consistency with their strike (both vertical and horizontally) to benefit from the additional spin around the green for that to have meaningful impact on their experience. 

 

For your golfers (group b) that have more neutral dynamics and those that lean toward the extreme side of in to out paths and close faces with low dynamic loft, the high compression balls will generally be better regardless of swing speed.

 

Without knowing exact numbers, I would say of the millions of golfers that play this game, the majority fall into group a.

 

 

[TLUBulldogGolf]

1 hour ago, betarhoalphadelta said:

 

@Simpsonia beat me to the punch in discussing soft balls. There is data suggesting that those balls are in fact NOT better for most slower swingers. Higher compression balls are longer off the driver, and spin more off the irons, even for the 85 mph driver swingers out there. Based on that testing, I don't know why a slow swinger would ever use a marshmallow. I'd love to dig into why this [possible] myth is being perpetuated, even by the ball OEMs. I've got some theories but don't know for certain. 

 

However, that is also why we can't use robot testing based upon those balls to know what the outcome will be for new "premium" balls that meet the new standards. We already know marshmallows are slow for ball speed and low for spin. If the end result of this rollback is that we all play marshmallows, then it'll be even worse than I thought. If the end result of this rollback is that they create premium high-compression balls with good characteristics and they're just shorter, any robot testing we do on conforming balls now will be irrelevant because the new balls won't behave like those. 

 

 

There are basically two ways I can think of to do it given the new test parameters. They either slow down the ball at the driver speed being tested or they adjust dimple patterns to introduce more drag (or some of both). I would imagine there are tricks with the layers to gain spin back if they go with a softer core, we have already seen some of this. But they asked for more time to presumably test all avenues. 

Edited April 19 by TLUBulldogGolf

[betarhoalphadelta]

1 hour ago, Pnwpingi210 said:

 

Anecdotally, a lot of golfers (call them group a) have out to in paths with open club faces (think classic over the top).   A lower compression ball will likely curve less and give them more distance, both off the tee and with irons due to the reduction of spin.   You are correct the faster they swing the more spin they generate.  They also don’t have the club dynamics or consistency with their strike (both vertical and horizontally) to benefit from the additional spin around the green for that to have meaningful impact on their experience. 

 

 

Yeah, it's one of the things that I do think about. If a ball spins less, ostensibly it should curve less, which might be a big thing. I noticed (anecdotally w/o data) when I switched from the Kirkland V2 3-piece ball (a spin monster) to the Snell MTB-X (middle of the road) it SEEMED like the severity of my draw/hook miss was lesser. However I don't know if that was true or just confirmation bias, or if it was true but had to do with other swing changes I was making at the time. 

 

But I think those players would also benefit from the times that they actually manage to hit a green to not have the ball go bounding off the back because it's not spinning enough. You say they don't have the skill "to benefit from the additional spin around the green", but I disagree. They may not be able to control it with precision like a better golfer, but that doesn't mean they don't benefit from it. Those "group a" golfers often don't have the peak height and descent angle of a better golfer, which makes any spin they can get even more important at stopping the ball on a green. 

 

[Pnwpingi210]

7 minutes ago, betarhoalphadelta said:

 

Yeah, it's one of the things that I do think about. If a ball spins less, ostensibly it should curve less, which might be a big thing. I noticed (anecdotally w/o data) when I switched from the Kirkland V2 3-piece ball (a spin monster) to the Snell MTB-X (middle of the road) it SEEMED like the severity of my draw/hook miss was lesser. However I don't know if that was true or just confirmation bias, or if it was true but had to do with other swing changes I was making at the time. 

 

But I think those players would also benefit from the times that they actually manage to hit a green to not have the ball go bounding off the back because it's not spinning enough. You say they don't have the skill "to benefit from the additional spin around the green", but I disagree. They may not be able to control it with precision like a better golfer, but that doesn't mean they don't benefit from it. Those "group a" golfers often don't have the peak height and descent angle of a better golfer, which makes any spin they can get even more important at stopping the ball on a green. 

 

I agree with most of what you are saying.  
 

I wasn’t disparaging their skill, but more they just aren’t consistent enough with strike for the spin to help.  Again anecdotally of course, the amount of players I see hit long through the green due to the ball not spinning or not to stop is very very low (the balls do that are generally skulled or thinned and no amount of high spin ball is helping that).
 

 We probably play different green conditions but I very rarely see a player have a ball hit a green and run through it from inside 180 yards or either less than a long iron or hybrid. 

Edited April 19 by Pnwpingi210

[Simpsonia]

3 hours ago, Pnwpingi210 said:

I hear what you are saying.   Since we don’t have launch monitor data from on course play for most players , and we know that a vast majority of golfers don’t get fitted for equipment, we won’t have any data to to support a position on this.

 

Anecdotally, a lot of golfers (call them group a) have out to in paths with open club faces (think classic over the top).   A lower compression ball will likely curve less and give them more distance, both off the tee and with irons due to the reduction of spin.   You are correct the faster they swing the more spin they generate.  They also don’t have the club dynamics or consistency with their strike (both vertical and horizontally) to benefit from the additional spin around the green for that to have meaningful impact on their experience. 

 

For your golfers (group b) that have more neutral dynamics and those that lean toward the extreme side of in to out paths and close faces with low dynamic loft, the high compression balls will generally be better regardless of swing speed.

 

Without knowing exact numbers, I would say of the millions of golfers that play this game, the majority fall into group a.

 

 

 

To be honest I don't think the spin reduction helps them nearly as much as people think when it comes to ball curvature, and in my opinion harms their overall scoring far more due to lack of spin in the iron/green game.

 

Using numbers from the 2023 golf ball survey I took the SuperSoft (one of the softer and lowest spin balls; shots 1-3) and compared it to the Kirkland V3 (one of the highest spin balls; shots 4-6) in the Flightscope Optimizer using all the same numbers from the robot testing for low swing speed players with a few different spin axis. Here's the driver results. Offline numbers aren't that far apart. I even went to the extreme with a 30* spin axis (not pictured) and offline numbers were still within 1 yard of each other. The SuperSoft also only had 4 yards of carry on the Kirkland. Interestingly, every single ProV1 model outperformed the SuperSoft in driver distance for slow swing speeds as well. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited April 19 by Simpsonia

[Pnwpingi210]

2 minutes ago, Simpsonia said:

 

To be honest I don't think the spin reduction helps them nearly as much as people think, and in my opinion harms their overall scoring far more due to lack of spin in the iron/green game.

 

Using numbers from the 2023 golf ball survey I took the SuperSoft (one of the softer and lowest spin balls; shots 1-3) and compared it to the Kirkland V3 (one of the highest spin balls; shots 4-6) in the Flightscope Optimizer using all the same numbers from the robot testing for low swing speed players with a few different spin axis. Here's the driver results. Offline numbers aren't that far apart. I even went to the extreme with a 30* spin axis (not pictured) and offline numbers were still within 1 yard of each other. The SuperSoft also only had 4 yards of carry on the Kirkland. Interestingly, every single ProV1 model outperformed the SuperSoft in driver distance for slow swing speeds as well. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Agree that a player with delivery conditions you posted (5 - 15 feet left or right of target is still very neutral) won’t see the benefit of a lower compression/lower spin ball.  💯

 

It’s the more extreme spin axis where it matters.  Maybe more so with irons as much as driver. 
 

I’m sharing an opinion on what I observe since there is no data set Im aware that captures the average swing dynamics of the causal high handicap or not ghin carrying handicap golfer.  I get paired up with different high handicap/not tracking golfers.  I just don’t see them having problems holding greens once the ball touches the putting surface, i see them having problems getting on the putting surface.   Could I be wrong on this, sure.  But I haven’t seen any compelling large scale test to disprove it, and I have seen individual fits using foresight were a  lower compression provided more distance and less curvature (q star, AVX, etc).  I will also acknowledge as what you see with your own eyes is the least reliable evidence.

 
for the mid to low handicap golfer, regardless of their swing speed, its reasonable to conclude that high compression balls are better for their scoring performance.  
 

there are roughly 25 million golfers in the us.  2 million have a handicap.  1 million of those are under a 14 hc or under.  That leaves us with 24 million golfers that are potentially not 14 hc or better. 

 

 

[ThinkingPlus]

6 hours ago, Simpsonia said:

 

Because as our resident expert @ThinkingPlus has pointed out multiple times in this thread, all of the "conventional wisdom" around low compression balls is all marketing bullxxxx. Actual robot testing has shown that premium high-compression balls are better for all swing speeds, including low swing speeds. To be honest, the only reason I can think of why low swing speed players prefer low compression balls is, despite objectively worse performance, is it's just a feel thing. A high-compression ball could potentially feel 'clicky' or hard when struck with a low swing speed, so people might prefer the marshmallows just so they get that soft feeling off the face, even if they get objectively worse performance. 

 

Edit: seriously check out the annual golf ball evaluation done with robot testing on another espionage themed golf website. The only reason that soft balls can even possibly keep up in distance (and they still can't fully match high-compression balls in ballspeed) is because they spin far less. That low spin is very detrimental when it comes to approach and around the green play. 

Most of the low compression marshmallows are cheaper as well. High caps who lose alot of balls and who are on a budget trade performance for cost.

[Pnwpingi210]

48 minutes ago, ThinkingPlus said:

Most of the low compression marshmallows are cheaper as well. High caps who lose alot of balls and who are on a budget trade performance for cost.

Yes.  That too.  Lots of folks out there that play what they find on course

[betarhoalphadelta]

1 hour ago, ThinkingPlus said:

Most of the low compression marshmallows are cheaper as well. High caps who lose alot of balls and who are on a budget trade performance for cost.

 

They should go get a Costco membership 😉 

[Simpsonia]

2 hours ago, Pnwpingi210 said:

Agree that a player with delivery conditions you posted (5 - 15 feet left or right of target is still very neutral) won’t see the benefit of a lower compression/lower spin ball.  💯

 

It’s the more extreme spin axis where it matters.  Maybe more so with irons as much as driver. 
 

I’m sharing an opinion on what I observe since there is no data set Im aware that captures the average swing dynamics of the causal high handicap or not ghin carrying handicap golfer.  I get paired up with different high handicap/not tracking golfers.  I just don’t see them having problems holding greens once the ball touches the putting surface, i see them having problems getting on the putting surface.   Could I be wrong on this, sure.  But I haven’t seen any compelling large scale test to disprove it, and I have seen individual fits using foresight were a  lower compression provided more distance and less curvature (q star, AVX, etc).  I will also acknowledge as what you see with your own eyes is the least reliable evidence.

 
for the mid to low handicap golfer, regardless of their swing speed, its reasonable to conclude that high compression balls are better for their scoring performance.  
 

there are roughly 25 million golfers in the us.  2 million have a handicap.  1 million of those are under a 14 hc or under.  That leaves us with 24 million golfers that are potentially not 14 hc or better. 

 

 

 

Here's the most extreme example of a banana slice I can come up with with Flightscope. 45* slice spin axis (Flightscope doesn't actually allow more than a 45* spin axis), amped up the spin on the Kirkland to 4500 (this hypothetical low swing speed player really hits down on the ball with driver), using the same comparative spin difference to the SuperSoft and the offline is 2.5 yards difference, not exactly world shattering difference between the two.

 

 

 

All I'm saying is that low spin balls aren't saving this high handicapper low swing speed player from their terrible swing. 

 

As for an anecdote, I have a couple friends who are mid handicaps, low to mid swing speed, low spin, low launch. I keep telling them they desperately need more spin because the only way they ever hold a green right now is by landing it 10-15 yards short and rolling it up. 

 

 

Edited April 19 by Simpsonia

[Pnwpingi210]

21 minutes ago, Simpsonia said:

 

Here's the most extreme example of a banana slice I can come up with with Flightscope. 45* slice spin axis (Flightscope doesn't actually allow more than a 45* spin axis), amped up the spin on the Kirkland to 4500 (this hypothetical low swing speed player really hits down on the ball with driver), using the same comparative spin difference to the SuperSoft and the offline is 2.5 yards difference, not exactly world shattering difference between the two.

 

 

 

All I'm saying is that low spin balls aren't saving this high handicapper low swing speed player from their terrible swing. 

 

 

I don’t disagree with your summary and statement it doesn’t save them from a terrible swing.  But adding spin to that player, which the Kirkland does, isn’t helping.  
 

There is certainly no benefit with the lowest spinning club - assuming this is driver and their club head speed is around 85 mph you would want spin to be 3600-2600 depending on AOA.  The Kirkland is going to spin more off the irons as well.  This is where that golfer is really going to have a tough time in any kind of headwind. The ball is going to fly shorter and more right.  
 

To play out a different scenario.  The better low swingspeed golfer is going to likely learn to play the low, low spin draw off the tee to maximize distance and roll.  This golfer will absolutely benefit from the higher spinning and higher compression ball as it will keep their miss in the air longer.  My point in the post above is this a relatively very small segment of the 26 million golfers in the United States.

Edited April 19 by Pnwpingi210

[munichop]

On 4/19/2024 at 6:58 AM, Pnwpingi210 said:

You nailed it.  Spin management is why low compression balls can perform better for some players.  Particularly those that struggle with out to in paths and open face angles or high dynamic loft.  

I also see and agree with your choice to not directly link a competitors website and data in this thread 🙂

I am a low compression ball player. I have a bulging disc now and practice is limited. I prefer the feel of the marshmallow and do not worry about spinning the ball around the green. My game has devolved into point and shoot. Any distance gains are made on the ground for me now. I carry the driver about 220. In my 50 and over league I am 8 under par my last 2 events tying for first in both with a super soft. 
I have a square face chipper now for the muni lies I get around the green. 
watching my older friends continue to use tour balls makes me laugh a little because those balls require more precision on the strike to take advantage of the ball characteristics around the greens; in other words spin control. Almost all of these guys warm up chipping range balls. They leave chips short a lot because they over spin the shot or miss hit it. Old guys do not want to admit they are limited. I have embraced my limitations and can still get the ball in the hole though not as elegantly as I once did.

[maamold]

And right there, that's the issue that we face, AK said it clear as day. With the driver technology today shorter hitters lose their advantage of hitting the center of the face more often. And, personally this is where the USGA should have started, instead of the ball.

"...but now it's come to a point where you don't have to hit the ball in the center and you can hit get the same amount of yardage and same accuracy as somebody who does hit it in the center, and obviously not being a huge guy my advantage was being able to hit the ball in the middle of the face and and be in the fairway .But but now everyone's hitting it long everyone's hitting it everyone's hitting it semi straight and um so it it ends up  becoming a bombers putting contest..." - Anthony Kim

 

Starts at 28:29 

 

[maamold]

On 4/18/2024 at 10:39 AM, clevited said:

 

If he found one that suited him, potentially yes.  Unfortunately, we will never know.

You seem unsure...

Could it be that it's the tech not the golfer?

[smashdn]

On 4/18/2024 at 4:43 PM, Simpsonia said:

 

Ok so your answer would be that you want continued rollbacks, hit those numbers hell or highwater? 

 

What happens if the leaders keep getting reigned in through these rollbacks, but through natural selection of new players on tour that we end up getting a situation where the leader hits it 310, but the field average is now 305? Do you roll it back so that now nobody can clear the hazards? Because once the range between the leader and the field compresses that much, you have some real choices to make. 

 

On 4/18/2024 at 8:05 PM, bekgolf said:

 

It would make for a boring show with everyone hitting it the same distance and there being no risk of going offline. 

 

Why is this not the case today?

 

On 4/18/2024 at 8:05 PM, bekgolf said:

Professional golf is the best it's ever been and an amateur ruling body thinks the game is too easy when compared to the days of old so everyone must pay.  I'm still not on board with giving the USGA this much authority. 

 

Blame this guy > https://www.usga.org/content/usga/home-page/about/thomas-pagel.html

Or blame these volunteers that sit on the rules committee> https://www.usga.org/content/usga/home-page/about/executive-committee.html

 

On 4/18/2024 at 8:05 PM, bekgolf said:

All it would take is for the PGA to make their own rules and maintain a handicap index system.  Just like that there would be no reason for the USGA to exist.

 

The USGA should serve it's members, not just a select minority of them.

 

https://www.usga.org/content/usga/home-page/the-usga--about-us.html

 

Does the PGA or PGA Tour (unclear if you are talking Professionals or Touring Pros) have a Green Section?  PGA of A can certainly assist with running your golf business.  Not sure which org is pumping money into turf research.

 

Is the R&A absolved of all perceived wrong-doing?  We just going to let them keep on keeping on in the rest of the world?  USGA are the only ones tone-deaf to the members?

[Simpsonia]

40 minutes ago, smashdn said:

 

 

Why is this not the case today?

 

 

Well, it's more the fact that it is not yet today. The field average will continue to converge on the leaders. There's no stopping that trend with the current golf courses in the rotation. A rollback, however, does accelerate that trend, though we don't know (and likely disagree on) the degree to which that will happen. 

 

I say "with the current golf courses in the rotation", because as much as you love your golden age of design golf courses, they all have one thing in common baked into their DNA, and that is distance is very much a disproportionate advantage over any other golf skill. Since the current rotation of courses disproportionately advantages distance, that only creates further incentive for the field to pursue distance (either training for it, or replacing those who don't). That's just natural selection. I don't think you'd disagree that natural selection over time will trend towards the avenue with the largest advantage, right? 

 

But, that's not true of every course in the same way. Courses like TPS Sawgrass, Royal Melbourne, and Harbor Town have different reward systems in-place, and it has been shown (and statistically validated) that distance is not nearly as advantaged at these courses.

 

Think about it this way, with human behavior, competitors will always pursue the advantage. So long as distance remains a disproportionate advantage, that will be the primary avenue pursued by competitors. The only way to break any human cycle is to change the incentive program. De-emphasize the advantage distance confers, and you will reduce the rate at which it is pursued. 

 

I know you hate the so-called "penal school of design", but do you actually disagree with my assessments (and those of Mark Broadie in his distance paper) that distance is a disproportionate advantage when compared to other golf skills with the current courses we have in the professional rotation? If so, why? And, if distance is a disproportionate advantage, do you disagree that there will be a natural selection trend towards distance over time by competitors, since it is one of the highest rewarded golf skills (as shown and validated by shots gained stats)? 

[Ty_Webb]

1 hour ago, smashdn said:

Is the R&A absolved of all perceived wrong-doing?  We just going to let them keep on keeping on in the rest of the world?  USGA are the only ones tone-deaf to the members?

 

Speaking personally, the R&A is a lot more like the Masters committee. They're members of the R&A and they're basically trying to defend their home course (TOC). They're doing it slightly differently from the Masters, but at the end of the day, they don't answer to you and me. At all (except possibly I guess to the extent that we are willingly governed by them and that could be changed if enough people wanted it to). The USGA on the other hand I'm a member of. I would say they owe me just as much as they owe the members at Merion or LACC or any other of those blue blood country clubs. So I'd say they should reflect my opinion to the same extent that they do yours or Mr. head honcho somewhere. But they don't. 

 

The R&A answers to its members. The USGA apparently does not. That's the difference.