Still Wondering After All These Days...

I'm still digesting Wally Uihlein's statement last week to Mike Stachura of Golf Digest that a line in the sand has been drawn and the golf ball "fenced in" distance-wise under current rules. And I just keep wondering if this is in fact the case, what is now so offensive about the idea of a competition spec ball or a rollback for elite players? After all, the manufacturers signed off on a groove rollback to restore the value of skill, why is the ball different?

I even sense Blago and Goiter over at GolfDigest.com are open to this discussion based on their most recent post where Goiter seems open to considering bifurcation. And Wally, I just know you'll be anxious to join in on this potential Kumbaya moment.

Comments

[Wisconsin Reader]

When you - and many others - talk about a "competition golf ball" have you considered how complex the issue is? . . . For example, Tiger Woods uses a very low spinning ball because he would up-shoot or balloon most tour golf balls with his driver. But, many shorter hitting tour players need a ball that spins a lot to get their optimum launch angle on tee-shots. . .

What criteria would define a golf ball deemed to go too far? Obviously, it depends on who hits it. . . It also depends on the specifications of the driver being used. . . Driver and golf ball fitting for a tour player can take a full day - literally countless combinations of clubhead, shaft, and golf ball can be used. . . Tiger hits a low spinning ball 320 yards.
Would he be required to use a higher spinning ball which he would balloon while Luke Donald benefits from that type of golf ball which he hits 280 yards?
Just asking.

[cold topped]

WR,

Pretty sure Tiger is noted as using the highest spinning ball on Tour.

But you make a good point about the varied ball use. Players use differing compression depending upon club-head speed. There are still some that sacrifice distance for control (ie. Furyk has been quoted as doing so). A competition ball would no doubt produce some winners and losers.

If the competion ball was reasonably high spin, and combined with the new groove rule, you'd at least see some quality shot-making again. And you'd assume in that scenario that the players with "game" will be the ones to benefit.

[F. X.]

I think the idea of a competition ball won't fly but a 'competition class' of balls would, i.e., a class of balls ranging from spinny/control to distance/straight but ratcheted back 20%. I can see the shops now....ProV-1, ProV-1x, ProV-Competition

[Hawkeye]

Best idea so far, F.X. A "standard ball" would be a most unfair proposition.

[thusgone]

i wonder whether it is possible to create a set of competition parameters that allow for different spin rates, etc, but still "fence in" the golf ball as far as distance is concerned. as i understand it, in order to get a spinny workable ball, one has to sacrifice some distance off the driver, and if you want distance, you have to give up a little bit in the ball's ability to bite and curve.

it seems to me that this would allow the various manufacturers to slice and dice all the possible permutations of spin, distance and feel for marketing purposes, while stopping the distance increases. it would also prevent the dreaded bifurcation issue.

[OldTomYoung]

Geoff - you ask; "what is now so offensive about the idea of a competition spec ball or a rollback for elite players? After all, the manufacturers signed off on a groove rollback to restore the value of skill, why is the ball so different?"

You (and everyone else) is missing Emporer Uihlein's point...he is protecting the dominant Titleist share of market in the golf ball segment of the industry. Remember, the entire line of Titleist golf balls (Pro V1, Pro V1x, NXT Tour, NXT Extreme, DT Carry & DT Roll) are stamped to look "exactly" llike the balls used on tour...the NXT and DT model names can be found as a side stamp in very small type.

The overwhelming emphasis that Titleist is the "#1 ball in golf" and that Titleist is "used by over 450 Tour Professionals Worldwide" is what drives the brand...and the mothership is the worldwide tour dominance referenced above. The Titleist web site shows that the Pro V1/Pro V1x franchise was #1 on the PGA TOUR, European Tour, LPGA, Champion's Tour, Nationwide Tour and the international professional tours
(South African, Asian, Japan, Australasian & Canadian).

Consider this staggering success story: in 2008, Titleist golf balls won the ball count at The Open Championship for the 29th consecutive year and at the US Open Championship for the 60th consecutive year.

Wally Uihlein once commented that he had invested millions of dollars to become the #1 ball in golf; particularily on the professional tours; and that is what drives the brand in the consumer marketplace. Any suggestion to alter that dominance with a rollback on distance, dimples or cover changes will not be tolerated in the Kingdom of Fairhaven.

It will be a cold day in Far Hills (or Carlsbad) if Sir Walter ever signs off on changing the golf ball used on tour.

[chico]

I'm with Thus and FX on this one-I think a tour spec category of ball would work.I dont see how it would harm sales either.So long as the player is seen winning with a Titleist(or whatever) what difference would it make to the buying public?I think the arguament about matching the ball to the club to the golfer also highights the problem- surely technology has been allowed to go to far-if a pro cant spin it then learn to-and vice versa.

[86general]

I like the idea of tours using restricted flight balls, as they see fit, for certain events at certain venues. It's already in the rules, sort of I guess, in that they can stipulate a "condition of competition." If the rules allow for a competition balls, aren't we still all using the same rules? Just availing ourselves of an option in the rules?

Geoff, I don't see the connection between Uihlein's prediction that distance is capped by physics and rolling the ball back a little? What does one have to do with the other? If anything, the notion that distance is capped by physics would seem to me to be an argument that there's no point in rolling it back. We've already adjusted to the new ball, haven't we? To really change the game significantly at the pro level, I think you'd have to roll the ball back into a distance range of that long stable era, the Nicklaus/Watson era, when average PGA tour driving distance was probably 260 yards or so. A 20 yard rollback isn't going to change things that much, is it? I think if you roll distance back to a 260 yard PGA Tour average, your average weekend player is going to take a hit...and suffer for it.

But honestly--I'm asking...how does Uihlein's statement make you think it's even more logical to roll the ball back now?

[Erik J. Barzeski]

One of the many problems with bifurcation is determining where the line is. At the PGA Tour? What about the Nationwide Tour guys? Professional golf? That seems like it'll unnecessarily hamper college golfers looking to turn pro. There's no good place to draw the line, and if you don't draw a line, some amateurs will play them and some won't. Then what - different course ratings for the different balls?

And 20%? Please. I don't really want to see Tiger Woods "bombing" his driver 250.

The PGA Tour is still a putting and a GIR contest. The groove rule will change the short game and re-introduce fliers. Can we see how the added importance of hitting the fairway changes the pro game before discussing further steps, particularly given the troubles this sort of bifurcation presents?

(P.S. I'm not saying the groove rule will necessarily have a large impact, but I do think there will be at least a little impact.)