Feherty Advocates Ball Change

Ron Green Jr. in the Charlotte Observer talks to David Feherty, who talks about Tiger, how technology is not hurting the game, and what he'd do if he were Commissioner for a day:

Q. If you had Tim Finchem's job and could change one thing, what would it be? I would change the size of the ball. I'd make it .02 bigger. With one fell swoop you would cure a bunch of problems. The ball wouldn't go as far. It would spin. It would be harder to hit straight. It would be harder to hit far. It would be very slightly harder to get in the hole.

On the upside you'd bring a lot of old courses back into relevance.

It also sits up nicely around the greens. The amateur player has more fun playing with it. I grew up with the 1.62 (ball) and I remember changing to the 1.68 and thinking, wow, this is so much more fun playing with this ball.

For the high handicapper, those shots around the greens are difficult. When the ball is a little bigger, it makes such a difference. There's more of it to get underneath.

We've done it once before. I don't see a reason not to do it again.

I've added Feherty to the list of those who advocate something be done to de-emphasize distance in the game today. He's in good company!

Comments

[Smolmania]

Well, let's hear from you science and engineering guys out there. Would an increase in the size of the ball have the effect that Mr. Feherty says it would? Sean, how about it? Seems like a pretty simple solution (except for the fact that I have about 4 dozen ProVs that would become obsolete). Also seems like a solution that would affect a bunter like me less than it would for the big guys. Might even make it more possible to work the ball? At least I seem to recall that the British 1.62 ball was used across the pond because it wasn't affected by the wind.

[Sean Murphy]

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Coddling

Smols,
Seve Ballesteros is calling for the ball to be made bigger as well, for the same reasons. I'm afraid the next thing we would be seeing is more shallow dimples, where spin is reduced further once again. The Spring like effects or Cor on drivers is coddling the golf ball in reducing spin as well. There is a rule on how thin the driver face can be but not how thick it can be. As Tom Wishon has pointed out, there should be a tolerance of 83% transfer of energy allowed between 109mph and 112mph with diminishing Cor Values witnessed at 113mph and there being an 82% transfer of energy with furthering reductions of energy witnessed at anything 113mph or greater, thus keeping everyone playing with simular Cor benefits. Next the USGA needs to set a limit on Golf Ball "CORE HARDNESS" so that these cores are compressed with irons, so that rough will play like rough use to. All of this would reduce distance and create some more spin so that the "Integrity of Golf" is maintained. As Arnold Palmer will reveal in his forward of the book below, something needs to be done to a certain extent with dimples on the golf ball. What happend in the Polara rulings is not only a precedent but also a mandate set by the USGA to be followed. And it has not been followed. It's all about money which includes professional golfers playing for a living, which the USGA forgot to take into consideration when they started looking the other way a number of years ago. If the USGA does not wake up soon, their going to be jolted from their coma to find themselves trying to defend their position like the people of Polara Golf Balls.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/explorer/0930625722/1/104-1500592-4295951

This book has a wealth of information, and is currently being studied on behalf of professional golfers. Not only does this book give great detail on USGA testing procedures, but also on rulings for conforming golf balls. The Polara snafu is priceless, and creates a precident acted on by the USGA. In this book it gives all the details of the Court Actions taken by the people behind the Polara and the USGA where it was finally settled out of court with the USGA paying Polara $1.375,000 in 1985.

The USGA contended that the Polara corrected the ball in mid flight, while the Polara people said it merely reduced the amount of curve in flight.

The USGA has allowed so much spin to be removed from the golf ball today that all professionals are now playing with a golf ball that doesn't need to be corrected in flight because there has been such a reduction in spin rate that today's balls correct themselves before they are ever struck.

"The fact that the original Polara test ball went a thirty-to-forty yard shorter distance off the tee was a real downer, but for high-handicappers, keeping the ball in the fairway was more important. The distance deficiency could and would be remedied in the coming years. USGA, however, was deepley worried about the dire effects the ball was having on the game."

"It was America's bicentennial year, 1976, when PGA/Victor submitted the Polara ball to the USGA for approval as a conforming ball for tournament play. The inventors saw no problem in getting an OK, and why should they, since their balls met all USGA standards? But on testing the ball that year, USGA found that this ball would drastically change the way the game of golf was played. They reacted accordingly, refusing to approve the Polara while they began to draft a law to ban the Polara and all similar balls. The USGA ruled, "It [the Polara] would reduce the skill required to play golf and threaten the integrity of the game." Until tests were completed and a rule adopted that would ban the Polara, the USGA mandated that no ball designed to correct a hook or slice in flight would be placed on the approved list."

"Was the USGA over-reacting about the little Polara, as many seemed to suggest? No. Equipment has, of course, made the game easier to a certain degree. The question is---where do you draw the line? What if five years from now Polara, Titleist, or Spalding introduces a ball that goes farther than any other on the market, has the spin and feel of balata, the durability of Surlyn, rights itself in flight and meets all USGA regulations? It would dominate the market. Everyone would start to produce these balls. The face of the game would change forever, scores would drop, courses would have to be redesigned, and almost everyone would be qualifying as a pro."

"Has this happened in the past? Sure. USGA Open winners in the early 1900's scored about 78/79 for eighteen holes. Today the winning scores are at least 10 strokes less on courses that have had to be lengthened. So where do you draw the line? The USGA says right here."

Smols, Geoff, professionals are looking deep at the solution to the non-conforming golf balls that are allowed out on the PGA Tour today, where accuracy is a non factor in predicting winners, and where these hard core balls are bouncing club faces even further but specifically at 120mph and greater. E.g. Doral in 2005 where Tiger beat Phil and they were last and dead last in accuracy for the week. Where in 2002 Tigers distance was 6th with 294 yards and then in 2003 294 yards being witnessed at 46th in distance with the new 400cc headed drivers and new X balls with the hardest core ever.

John F. Hotchkiss's words are prophetic as is the forward by Arnold Palmer. Statistics on distance and accuracy do not lie. The USGA has already set a precident with the Polara. Today's golf balls are doing exactly what John F. Hotchkiss worried about. The evidence is everywhere and is costing some fortunes while the USGA looks the other way while probably taking their "Grease Money" to pay for their "Net-Jet Services".

I would suggest Dick Rugge and Walter Driver read this book as well, it should help to remind them of some of the important things that the USGA has already said in the past. If a class action law suit is brought by professional golfers, the settlement will be much larger than $1.3 Million.

[C.W.]

Jack Nicklaus has said, "I promise you, it's very simple to bring that ball back 10 percent and still keep the same characteristics," he said. "That's not a big deal. ... If the golf ball goes shorter, you don't have to come out every year and have the same conversation: 'What did we do to Augusta to combat what happened to the golf ball last year?'"

Yes, the only thing that needs to be done is standardize the core hardness of the golf ball and the Cor benefits of drivers. Jack and Sean are both correct. It would be easy to soften up the core of modern golf balls while maintaining the same flight characteristics. The golf balls have been made harder to increase their distance by expanding the Cor of a driver further. I've read what Tom Wishon has posted and completely agree. There should be a ceiling set on driver's Cor where no more than an 82% transfer of energy could be witnessed for any club head speed of 113mph. An 84% transfer of energy is not allowed at 109mph and 82% or greater would not be allowed above 113mph. Manufacturers have come at distance from two avenues, harder core golf balls and spring like effects allowed on drivers. With a Cor limit on energy transfer for anything over 112mph club head speed, and softening up the core of the golf balls would reduce the out of control distance crisis.

[OldSchool]

The USGA would not allow a ball to fly straighter and shorter to ensure hitting a fairway, but they will allow a juiced up ball and driver to go long and wrong, where 9 irons and wedges into 450 yard par 4's is the norm. These guys would blow three times what Ogilvie blew. How about it, 5, 10 and 15 handicappers trying to make up the rules and figure out what's going on around them when they have never gotten it from the beginning.

[R. Thompson]

A class action law suit with players from "THE LIST" testifying, would bankrupt the USGA. This group would only need one specialist in the field like Tom Wishon, and it's turn out the lights the party's over.