Sunday
Apr022006
Kroichik On Distance, Masters Ball Possibility
Ron Kroichik looks at the possiblity of a ball rollback, a "Masters ball" and offers all sorts of interesting tidbits about a distance rollback:
Sandy Tatum barely hesitates before answering in the affirmative. Tatum, the former United States Golf Association president and patriarch of Harding Park's renovation, joins Jack Nicklaus in suggesting the USGA "roll back" the distance the ball can travel. Woods and his big-hitting colleagues on the PGA Tour routinely smack drives more than 300 yards, taking golf into once-unimaginable frontiers.And...
It's either a thrilling joyride (many fans), a fundamental affront to the game (traditionalists such as Tatum) or an unwelcome threat to booming business (elite players and golf-ball manufacturers).
Tatum begins his sermon with this premise: The ball goes too far. The faster a player swings, the greater the benefit from technology. Drivers with club heads triple the size they were 15 years ago collide with balls specifically designed to soar into the stratosphere.
"It puts the game seriously out of balance," Tatum recently said. "You get more emphasis on power and less on shot-making. The stats will tell you, accuracy is no longer anywhere near as important as distance."
These kind of numbers help explain why Chairman Hootie Johnson felt compelled to try to keep Augusta National "current with the times." He lengthened the course for the second time in five years, but only after hinting club officials might force players to use a "uniform ball" in the Masters, one unlikely to travel such prodigious distances.
That option still exists for Johnson and his colleagues in Augusta, but even then it would apply only to the Masters. The USGA and Royal & Ancient Golf Club, the game's governing bodies and rules makers, do not favor the idea of a uniform ball.
"That's not in the cards, for the same reason a baseball player doesn't have the same bat as any other player," said Dick Rugge, the USGA's senior technical director. "It's personal equipment suited to each player."
Rugge nonetheless elevated this long-simmering debate into another realm in April 2005, on the day after Woods won the Masters. Rugge sent an e-mail to manufacturers, inviting them to participate in a research project by making balls that travel 15 and 25 yards shorter than current models.
This would not be a uniform ball, because players still could arrange their own specifications (launch angle, spin rate, etc.). But the ball would not fly as far, exactly the kind of rollback Nicklaus and Tatum are advocating.
Rugge, in a phone interview last week, said the USGA expects to receive prototype, reduced-distance balls from manufacturers "very soon." Rugge and his staff -- 18 people in all, including six engineers -- will then embark on extensive research to determine how those balls would affect the game.
"To some people, it's as simple as a shorter ball," Rugge said. "I can tell you from our research, it's a much more complex issue than that."
And...
Top players, not surprisingly, are cool to the idea of limits on technology. Woods, asked earlier this year about the ongoing chatter about a uniform ball, practically scoffed, saying, "I don't think it's realistic at all. Do you realize what that would do to the golf-ball industry?"
Gee, think he has a lucrative endorsement contract?
Mickelson similarly downplayed the possibility of a uniform ball. As for rolling back the ball, he said, "I don't think we'll ever get to that point," though the USGA's impending research project suggests it's possible. Woods, interestingly, seems open to rolling back the ball.
For now, technology rolls forward on several fronts. The USGA recently proposed a "liberal limit" on so-called moment of inertia, to address the modern drivers that create good shots even with imperfect contact. Rugge said a final decision will be made in the coming months.
In the coming days, all eyes will turn to Augusta and the stretched-out course awaiting Woods, Mickelson and their brethren. They will arrive armed with the finest equipment available, ready to tackle the beast. There will be much talk about those 4-plus miles of Georgia landscape -- and not as much talk about the little white balls at the center of the action.
Sunday, April 2, 2006 at 01:57 PM
Reader Comments (18)
Cards and Bats? Does he want us to believe there are baseball players that get to choose which baseball they want pitched to them will be? "It's personal equipment suited to each player." Isn't it one standardized baseball being pitched to each and every ball player?
Shaft stiffness, grip size, club length, over all weight, swing weight are the parameters that a golfer has in determining how his personal equipment is best suited for him to strike a golf ball.
Is he saying that the USGA allows golf balls to be individually manufactured for an individuals specifications? Are footballs manufactured exclusively for quarterbacks, and kickers?
Golf balls manufacturered for launch conditions, and spin ratios is one thing, allowing golf balls to be manufactured for swing speed is another. Compression should be a standard on a golf ball, just like the standard on the core of a baseball. Certainly Baseball could produce a hotter core baseball. Only that would ruin the integrity and strategy of their sport, and render the existing ball parks that baseball is currently played in, obsolete. Sound familiar?
Alumium bats and "harder" core golf balls, is what has happened to golf in the past 8 years. And everyone keeps wondering whats going on with all the bulldozing and millions of dollars being thrown out to keep national treasures (Augusta National) from going into the record books? What I want to know is, "Who's on first?"
Speaking of Aluminum bats, Ernie is suggesting that the rules of golf go back to the integrity of clubfaces. Reflex irons of the 70's were ruled non conforming because the clubface had spring built into it. The USGA's position back then was that there could not be a spring built into the clubface. I feel Ernie is correct, the USGA should reverse itself and go back to the former interpretation of the rule.
Tony, it was the RnA, and Arnold, that were in favor of these aluminum bats to begin with. Possibly, since your courses over there are the ones that are land locked, RnA could admit its mistake, and reverse course on the aluminum bat issue. The USGA is completely over ruled here by the manufacturers, so possibly we get the rule on face give reversed to its former position, and we answer this Bash-Ball from the other end of the matter.
FRED FUNK - At the 2006 Players Championship: "it's sad because I think they've lost control of the game...I'm just adamant about the way the game has gone really since 2002, since this last generation of golf ball...bring one golf ball back that's talked about or bring the golf ball back, just go back to the golf ball we had before this last change, and it would narrow down that gap between the long and the short.
TOM KITE - In Golfweek's Forecaddie, March, 2006: "If the manufacturers continue to run the game, I think the game is in for a long, tough road. The rule-making body (USGA) is not making rules for the game. The manufacturers are, and their No. 1 goal is to sell product. Everything is based on speed. It's not based on ball-striking. If you want a good game, you can go buy it."
It has been suggested by Sean, that their could be a player revolt, it certainly does look like a real possibility.
More importantly, the issue is not whether or not golf balls should be in some manner "uniform," though the manufacturers would like to scare the public into believing that. The issue is whether or not the core of the ball should be uniform. Spin rates may vary depending upon cover composition, thickness, and such, but when a ball is created that will only compress at swing speeds unattainable by the bunters of the world, an unfair advantage has been created. . . to the detriment of the game.
The good news is that, at least from what we see here on this blog, that this message appears to be getting out into the mainstream. Maybe someone in Far Hills has a computer?
You are correct. Tiger is opposed to the idea of one ball spec by one maker for all play. His comments on altering the ball's core and spin rate are linked over in The List link for anyone interested.
As for Ernie, he is the one indirectly responsible for the spring testing for drivers on Tour (has anybody been busted on this?). Apparently Tiger witnessed Els' ridiculous bombs at Kapalua (02 or 03) and called b.s. to the PVB boys. Then he saw where it was heading, changed coaches, got the latest equipment/ball launch monitor matchings and has converted to what you see today.
Sean - any validity to this?
http://www.golfdigest.com/newsandtour/index.ssf?/newsandtour/gw20030124tourtalk.html
The catalyst is Ernie Els, who began the season at the Mercedes Championships with drives that were 40 yards longer than his 2002 season average. His 31-under performance on the par-73 Plantation Course at Kapalua blew past the tour's record under-par mark by three shots. At the Sony Open in Hawaii at Waialae CC, Els turned those big shoulders to produce four more rounds in the 60s and a playoff win over Aaron Baddeley. His 315.8-yard driving distance average led the field, and he was T-2 in greens in regulation. The scary thing: The Big Easy seems to be swinging easier than ever before.
If his clubhead speed hasn't increased, is it safe to say that the loss of absorbtion has been decreased, and what we are actually seeing is a reduction in loss of energy upon contact, therefore we begin to move closer to the analogy on the collision of two pool balls colliding with one another, where that cor of restitution is recorded at almost 1.000, and there is virtually no loss of energy upon contact. Yes, that is what we have been witnessing since 2003.
NRH,
You are very astute. Look these guys bombing it today where bombing it 6 years ago, but no way where they as long as they are today. Example, in 2000 I was paired with the Big Easy (and he is an exemplified professional all the way around) at the Sony Open on Sunday. I out drove Ernie on 2, 6, and 9, all holes back into the wind, with 6 having a strong cross wind. When we reached 13, which is a par 5 converted into a par 4, Ernie took the Head Cover off my Driver and said "what in the hell is that"? I was using a Nickent knock off great big bertha, called the Great Hawk. He pulled it out of my bag, swung it, and laughed. He says, "I've never heard of it but you've out driven me on three holes into the wind with it". "It obviously works". Point being, I can't come close to driving it with Ernie today, and its all because of the hard core golf balls and the super spring effect that has been purposely manufactured at around the 120mph clubhead speed. These guys NRH, are the "Only Ones" that are truly getting the "Spring" out of the drives. In 2001, 2002 I would say that the "Spring" was happening more effectively around 110 to 115mph, and did in fact probably give some more distance to guys like Sluman, Verplank, Dimarco, Kendall, Funk, and most guys between those lower swing speeds. The manufacturers starting in 2003, 04, and 05 have created harder cores within the balls, and guys like Tiger, Vijay, Phil, Bubba, and JB are getting those harder core golf balls to actually bounce a slightly thicker faced driver, off of the map. It's become a joke, and in my 18 years as a professional golfer, it has XXXX'ED out the Sportsmanship, Integrity, and Courtsey that the Sport was founded on. The reason I strongly adhear to that opinion is because these golf balls today can not be compressed by every professional on Tour. The "Ball" is the object, and should never be allowed to be manufactured, where only a club head speed of 120mph or greater can compress such golf balls cores, because not everyone on the PGA Tour can swing that fast. It's gone beyond what I consider equitable. This scanario is not equitable where there is evidenced a "Incremental Distance Advantage" to those swinging the club 120mph or greater.
Second NRH, these hard core golf balls run straight up the face fast on shots out of the rough, launching high, and with plenty of spin on the shot in order to FLOG a course to death, where rough really isn't rough anymore, unless its 8 inches deep like we just saw at Sawgrass. Geoff, hates to see rough like that dictating course set ups as I do too. Only how do you stop the FLOGING unless you grow 8 inch rough?
And so you are most accurate on where the real "Bombs" originated at. The beginning of 2003. Ernie comes out averaging 40 yards further than 2002. The Big Easy isn't called the Big Easy for nothing. And the manufacturers can spew out all that better conditioning of athletes, and agronomy, anything that will distract the USGA from really looking at whats taking place with the physics of Driver and Golf Ball. Nobody comes back the next year averaging 40 extra yards over night. Otherwise, we need to start testing. If its not the ball and club, then it has to be vitamin S.
Personally, I don't think it is vitamin S, but it is the beginning of 2003 where the Distance Spiked in favor of high club head speeds. As Fred Funk has so accurately pointed out, the balls in 2002, 2001 where just fine where we still saw the 30 to 35 yard disparity that can be witnessed from 1980 through about 2000. The gap got a little bit wider 35 to 40 in 2001 and 2002, but then starting in 2003 it spiked to a 65 to 75 yard disparity from shortest to longest.
The USGA needs to go back to those balls in 2001 and 2002 and call that the line in the sand. Those balls where fine in that everyone was compressing the cores of those balls. They were border line fine from 4 to 5 inch rough, but everyone in the field was created equal when they arrived at the first tee. Today that is not the case. I understand manufacturers wanting to hold on to this technology because these balls are more durable, and do go further. But I think the line should be drawn with the balls of 2001-2002, and then lets get on with the golf, enough with the debate. On a final note to that, constant jacking the tees back to accomodate todays rocks are costing the Tour "Millions" of dollars, when we have members who have "NO Health Coverage" and some who have "NO Retirement Benefits". The 26 million allocated for the Avenal reconstruction could actually be spent better by the membership in addressing "Membership Needs". That's one of the reasons why I have been giving the Commissioner such a hard time lately. He put $4.2 million away in retirement benefits himself last year alone, and the non-profit membership is not fully covered with health and retirement benefits. There is something drastically wrong with that picture. The Tour doesn't need to be spending millions on TPC's reconstructions, when that money is actually needed else where. If we are going to continue to reconfigure TPC's to accomodate a golf ball, then the Commissioner needs to come off his $4.5 million salary and soon to be roughly $5 million in deferred compensation. For me personally, its all right to award a successful CEO when things are going great. However we don't really know as a membership how well its going when he won't provide the membership with all the financial information, and then to see himself giving himself a raise, and enormous deferred compensation retirement benefits when the "Entire" membership is "NOT" "COVERED" is like watching Saddam taking care of his people in IRAQ. Its senseless greed. So now you have a little insight on where I'm coming from on todays equipment and the organization.
Then we see this,
ERNIE ELS - In the February, 2003 Golf World: "I am not totally against technology but they do have to put a governor on the golf ball ... perhaps even the administrators should just consider bringing back wooden-headed clubs."
then back to Rosaforte's article,
A new Titleist ball (Pro V1x) and driver (983K), both of which Els is using, have generated much of the buzz, reminding many of the reaction to the original Pro V1 when it appeared in late 2000. On consecutive weeks the following January, Mark Calcavecchia shot 256 at Phoenix and Joe Durant 324 in the Hope, breaking the respective 72- and 90-hole PGA Tour scoring records. The initial demand among players for the V1x -- code-named "The Bomb" at Titleist headquarters in Fairhaven, Mass. -- overwhelmed the company's tour reps. Forty-two players in the Sony Open field who use a Titleist ball asked for the V1x.
Yes NRH, it took Ernie all of 45 days to see just what kind of nuclear bomb had been created. And like those scientists in Los Alomos National Laboratories, Ernie knew all to well what kind of destruction this new ball would produce.
Code Named, aka, "THE BOMB"!
We witnessed two nuclear bombs dropped in 1945, have we seen anymore since then? We have finally witnessed what can be done with a golf ball, its time to back away. It's time to come to our senses.