USGA/R&A Distance Insights Project (Updated Feb. 2021)

[iacas]

1 hour ago, lastings said:

If it is necessary to reduce distances, as the report says

I don't believe it says "it is necessary to reduce distances." Had it, the tenor of the conversation would be wildly different than it has been.

1 hour ago, lastings said:

A limited flight ball would disproportionately negatively affect the shorter hitters.   while moving back to a wound ball would give an advantage to the better ball strikers, and introduce more risk/reward into decision making  and hole planning.  

Not really.

You're drastically over-estimating how much a wound ball would curve. Go plug some numbers in to the FlightScope Trajectory Optimizer and you'll see what I'm talking about. Plus, just changing the makeup of the ball to "wound" doesn't necessarily mean it's going to behave like a balata ball of 1995 or something: we've learned a lot about aerodynamics, performance across the full spectrum of clubs, composition, etc. My guess is that someone could make a wound ball that performs almost identically to a 2020 Pro V1x.

[lastings]

18 minutes ago, iacas said:

You're drastically over-estimating how much a wound ball would curve. 

Ok.  maybe, but I don't know.    as I had mentioned, I read somewhere Dean Snell saying that on a standard Driver test a titleist professional 90 spins at 4,000, where as a ProV1 spins at 2,700.  That would be a 48% increase.    So, I guess while i'm saying going back to a wound ball, what I am really suggesting is a minimum spin threshold or something like that.  

[iacas]

18 minutes ago, lastings said:

Ok.  maybe, but I don't know.    as I had mentioned, I read somewhere Dean Snell saying that on a standard Driver test a titleist professional 90 spins at 4,000, where as a ProV1 spins at 2,700.  That would be a 48% increase.    So, I guess while i'm saying going back to a wound ball, what I am really suggesting is a minimum spin threshold or something like that.  

Balatas typically spun at 3000-3500, sometimes a bit higher, but that was before we knew a lot about how to optimize carry yardage, to hit up slightly, etc.

And I'm saying that there's no real way to do that without a minimum threshold that's ridiculously high.

Today's ball:

Ramping up the spin to 4500, or double what we have today and MUCH more than we had even with balata balls:

Not much more curve. And, players would adjust quite a bit, so you're not shaving 26 yards either

People think that the old balls spun a lot more off the driver, and while I've seen numbers as high as 4000, I've also seen tests done where a Tour Balata spun less than many modern urethane covered balls (and under 2800 or so).

So, once again, no.

[billchao]

2 hours ago, lastings said:

If it is necessary to reduce distances, as the report says, I just feel this is a better route that just introducing a limited flight ball or whatever.    A limited flight ball would disproportionately negatively affect the shorter hitters.   while moving back to a wound ball would give an advantage to the better ball strikers, and introduce more risk/reward into decision making  and hole planning.  

I meant why you thought watching pros lay up more often would make golf better. It would be boring IMO. Watching guys hit long drives is entertaining. Not only is it impressive to see them execute well, but they’re more likely to end up in a compromising position if they miss.

[Buckeyebowman]

9 hours ago, lastings said:

If it is necessary to reduce distances, as the report says, I just feel this is a better route that just introducing a limited flight ball or whatever.    A limited flight ball would disproportionately negatively affect the shorter hitters.   while moving back to a wound ball would give an advantage to the better ball strikers, and introduce more risk/reward into decision making  and hole planning.  

Here's a compromise, although the pros would never agree to it. A tour ball. Any other major sport that we watch, the players don't have their choice of balls. Not the NFL, NBA, MLB, tennis, soccer, etc.You play what the league provides. 

Here's a further compromise. The USGA and R&A could draw up specs that they expect the "Tour Ball" to conform to, subject to testing, and submit it to the manufacturers. That way the players could keep their endorsements, the manufacturers could continue their marketing efforts with all of their promises to us, and sell us any doggone ball they wish to. Can you imagine those ads? "According to our testing, these balls perform better than what the pros play!" 

Besides, the pros would still be longer than any of us chops! 

[snapfade]

Anyone around when these were on the shelves? 

 

 

 

[lastings]

40 minutes ago, Buckeyebowman said:

Here's a compromise, although the pros would never agree to it. A tour ball. Any other major sport that we watch, the players don't have their choice of balls. Not the NFL, NBA, MLB, tennis, soccer, etc.You play what the league provides. 

Here's a further compromise. The USGA and R&A could draw up specs that they expect the "Tour Ball" to conform to, subject to testing, and submit it to the manufacturers. That way the players could keep their endorsements, the manufacturers could continue their marketing efforts with all of their promises to us, and sell us any doggone ball they wish to. Can you imagine those ads? "According to our testing, these balls perform better than what the pros play!" 

Besides, the pros would still be longer than any of us chops! 

I see nothing wrong with this.  Baseball players play with “tour” bats.  NFL qbs throw with “tour” footballs.  NBA players shoot from a “tour” 3 pt line.  Golfers already play from “tour” tees, into “tour” rough, onto “tour” greens.   What’s the difference?  

7 hours ago, billchao said:

I meant why you thought watching pros lay up more often would make golf better. It would be boring IMO. Watching guys hit long drives is entertaining. Not only is it impressive to see them execute well, but they’re more likely to end up in a compromising position if they miss.

I like it it some players lay up and some go for it.  Some have the distance and the guts to go, while others play it safe.  It’s just more fun to watch people make decisions, which happens far less in today’s game.   That isn’t boring.  They made a freaking movie about that.  

[iacas]

1 hour ago, Buckeyebowman said:

Any other major sport that we watch, the players don't have their choice of balls. Not the NFL, NBA, MLB, tennis, soccer, etc.You play what the league provides. 

In all of those sports, the ball is "shared equipment." That's not true in golf. In every sport, players get to choose their own personal equipment.

1 hour ago, Buckeyebowman said:

That way the players could keep their endorsements

How do you figure? "I play this ball, and you can buy one that's different than the ball I play, but at least it's made by the same people."

Oy.

35 minutes ago, lastings said:

I see nothing wrong with this.  Baseball players play with “tour” bats.  NFL qbs throw with “tour” footballs.  NBA players shoot from a “tour” 3 pt line.  Golfers already play from “tour” tees, into “tour” rough, onto “tour” greens.   What’s the difference?  

Shared equipment.

[lastings]

I just don’t see anything wrong with everyone playing the same ball.  I mean, in 2000, it probably wasn’t fair that Tiger Woods was playing a better ball than half the tour.   I mean, quote, from the Tiger Woods book, after he lost the memorial by 4 strokes (his last tournament contracted with Titleist) “if I had my ball I would have won that by 5 strokes”.  Then went on to win his next tournament and then Win the US open by 15 strokes.  
 

Tiger woods is probably more meticulous about his equipment than any golfer ever (hence the rumor that all his irons are miura, just stamped with whoever his current sponsor is.).   And also he’s the greatest golfer ever.  So, I’m inclined to believe him when he says a ball is 10 strokes better.  

And I certainly understand that is a bit off topic as the advantages of a urythane covered solid ball are not solely distance related. 

By the way, it feels like this thread has gotten a bit argumentative, which isn’t really necessary.  We’re all just people that love golf and like to have conversations about golf at the deepest levels.  If this was live it wouldn’t be that way, but tone can be tough to detect in written form.  I’m just trying to interject some new ideas, right or wrong.   Just getting them out there to discuss. 

[billchao]

Here's what tour pros say the next steps should be following the USGA/R&A distance report - Golf Digest

---

We asked several tour pros at the AT&T Pebble Beach Pro-Am what they think needs to be done after the USGA/R&A...

Some input from tour pros. It echoes a lot of the points that have been brought up here.

[lastings]

10 minutes ago, billchao said:

Here's what tour pros say the next steps should be following the USGA/R&A distance report - Golf Digest

---

We asked several tour pros at the AT&T Pebble Beach Pro-Am what they think needs to be done after the USGA/R&A...

Some input from tour pros. It echoes a lot of the points that have been brought up here.

These would be the expected responses from players though, right?  But, from what I understand (and I could be wrong) course designers and course operators seem to have a different opinion, which was the basis for the USGA doing the study.  

nobody wants the to make the game harder on themselves, but could possibly accept it if they thought it was what’s best for the game.  
 

I don’t know that it is, but I do think it should be explored. Seems I might be on my own island with that opinion, though. 

 

Edited February 11, 2020 by lastings

[iacas]

58 minutes ago, lastings said:

I just don’t see anything wrong with everyone playing the same ball.

I do.

58 minutes ago, lastings said:

I mean, in 2000, it probably wasn’t fair that Tiger Woods was playing a better ball than half the tour.

It was available to them, too. Nick Price played a Strata (a solid-core ball) before Tiger had it in 2000. Others had solid-core balls before Tiger, too.

58 minutes ago, lastings said:

So, I’m inclined to believe him when he says a ball is 10 strokes better.

Did you also believe Phil when he told you six or seven times that he was 10 or 20 yards longer?

58 minutes ago, lastings said:

By the way, it feels like this thread has gotten a bit argumentative, which isn’t really necessary.

Then don't add your own tone to what you read?

I disagree with you. That doesn't mean it's "argumentative."

[mvmac]

I wonder if they just did nothing if the limits of technology would basically cap distance. How much more advanced can it get (within the rules)? 

Using a shared ball doesn't make sense because players should have the ability to use what works best for their swings/launch conditions. It's just not the same as other sports.

Like the article says, professional golf is entertainment and long drives are sexy. I think guys hitting it far is more entertaining than shotmaking, which there is still a good amount of. Just watch the shot tracer, no one just hits it straight.

This week at Riviera is going to be a great example that the old-school courses don't allow for a lot of low scores.

10 hours ago, iacas said:

People think that the old balls spun a lot more off the driver, and while I've seen numbers as high as 4000, I've also seen tests done where a Tour Balata spun less than many modern urethane covered balls (and under 2800 or so).

Right that makes sense because you're still using the modern driver.

[lastings]

5 hours ago, mvmac said:

Like the article says, professional golf is entertainment and long drives are sexy.

Long is a comparative term.  When you’re watching on TV, 325 isn’t all that entertaining when it lands in the middle of 30 divots from earlier that day.   It was more sexy when Daly would hit it 310 and it would be 25 yards out in front of the group of divots.

[boogielicious]

9 hours ago, Buckeyebowman said:

Here's a compromise, although the pros would never agree to it. A tour ball. Any other major sport that we watch, the players don't have their choice of balls. Not the NFL, NBA, MLB, tennis, soccer, etc.You play what the league provides. 

Here's a further compromise. The USGA and R&A could draw up specs that they expect the "Tour Ball" to conform to, subject to testing, and submit it to the manufacturers. That way the players could keep their endorsements, the manufacturers could continue their marketing efforts with all of their promises to us, and sell us any doggone ball they wish to. Can you imagine those ads? "According to our testing, these balls perform better than what the pros play!" 

Besides, the pros would still be longer than any of us chops! 

I would think it would be more similar to professional bowling. They use their own preferred ball.

I would not like this kind of restriction. It would also hurt a lot of companies. In a golf tournament, how many balls are used 2000, 5000? And that doesn't include practice balls. That is a lot of money lost for the companies that don't win the contract. I am not in favor of putting people out of work because the USGA/R&A are worried about distance.

[lastings]

17 minutes ago, boogielicious said:

I am not in favor of putting people out of work because the USGA/R&A are worried about distance.

I don’t think he was suggesting simply having one ball company winning a tour contract.  Just having tour specs that manufacturers would have to abide by.  

[Missouri Swede]

13 hours ago, Buckeyebowman said:

The USGA and R&A could draw up specs that they expect the "Tour Ball" to conform to, subject to testing, and submit it to the manufacturers.

 

3 hours ago, lastings said:

Just having tour specs that manufacturers would have to abide by.  

Isn't that exactly what we have now?

[lastings]

39 minutes ago, Missouri Swede said:

 

Isn't that exactly what we have now?

yes.  but, different specs.