I’m not a golfer, but here’s my perspective to answer the OP, and its provided as an illustration of the problems of regulating simple golf balls.
The golf ball weight and size are limited by golfing rules, and these rules are set by the United States Golf Association and followed by most leading golf associations in the world. According to the rules, a golf ball must be no smaller than, I can’t remember exactly off the top of my head, but something like 24.65 mm (that’s an air resistance issue) and must have a weight within a certain limit (which limit I can’t remember). Apart from that, you are pretty much free.
Now there are usually 4 main parts to a golf ball, the inner core, the surrounding envelope, the medial layer and the cover. All of these are made from different materials, in order to provide maximum performance (length of flight and controllability) the materials for these parts must have very different characteristics. The cover, for example, must be durable, suffer deformation well, and provide a balance of hardness and softness to provide the perfect spin amount.
This is a chemistry issue. Many companies are still trying to perfect their idea of the perfect golf ball, by mixing and matching polyurethanes with certain high specific gravity metals, and different melding temperatures and methods - e.g., extruders vs mixers. It’s also a physics issue, as you’ll note that the dimples on a golf ball have a highly regulated pattern, and that’s for a reason, but different types of balls have different patterns and that’s also for a reason.
It’s a real science and much more techincal than I’ve been able to portray here (apologies) So, how do you propose the United States Golf Association regulates golf ball manufacture?
It isn’t the golf balls specifically, but the whole package, as in the clubs too. Like I said the USGA has Iron Byron, a mechanical driving machine, and it would be simple (maybe not) to ensure that (via a radar gun or similar means) that the initial velocity doesn’t exceed X. But instead of taking any steps to do so, the USGA (and R & A) have basically taken a laissez faire approach. Now, to be fair, this week they are about to outlaw U-shaped grooves in favor of the older V shaped ones-this won’t affect distance but it should affect spin, and thus the ability to hold the greens. Maybe, as you intimate, there are too many loopholes to close, and we are stuck with the current tech. <shrug>
Jack Nicklaus said many times that he thought changing the ball was the way to bring the technology back. There are easy fixes to shorten the flight. It also is easy to measure the relative distances balls fly.
The USGA and R&A regulate golf clubs with extremely precise measurements. Not just the side of the clubhead, but the reactivity of the titanium face. If Isamu is implying that there is no way to regulate golf balls, I’m just not buying it.
Even if measurement of the particular materials in a golf ball were too challenging (for example, maybe it would make sense to limit specific gravity of some materials) then there is no question that performance limits could be effective in rolling back performance, just as there have been limits on the initial speed of golf balls since like the late 1970s. What’s wrong with adding in a limit on spin?
But ultimately, I think the proposal to limit golf technology more is a hard one to make. Now that performance of equipment has increased so much, I don’t see how well recreational golfers would react to the USGA taking away the golf balls that have increased our drives by 30 yards. I think that’s a non-starter. And in terms of setting a second performance standard for the PGA Tour, well, I’m not so sure the fans like the idea of prohibiting pro golfers from using the equipment that Colonel Bogey uses at the Wealthy Pines Country Club.
Golf without the new equipment would be far less interesting to watch. Tiger wouldn’t be challenged. Hell, he plays with sub standard equipment right now and still wins (the only smart thing Mickelson has ever said). If everyone was playing with poorer clubs and balls, Tiger would be even further ahead.
Lost in the technology advancements of golf, is the advancement in agonomy, and the lawnmower.
No one would ever think of rolling back agonomy technology. Greens can cut closer, green speeds at majors are at unprecented levels. You never see weeds in the fairways (pro tournaments) anymore and the grass is absolutely manicured.
IMO, the easiest “fix” to reign in the golf ball. The minimum diameter of a golf ball is 1.68 in diameter. all other things being equal, A higher min diameter:
(1) will generally not travel as far, more drag
(2) will be more affected by wind
(3) putting will be harder, a bigger ball doesn’t fit in a golf hole as well
I think a bigger ball will be easier to hit for the higher handicappers, and it will sit up better in the fairway.
92)
No more than I mourn the sweeper system or the old-fashioned centre forward in football. Sports change. The top players at the moment are multi-dimensional yet with distinct styles, all staggeringly talented, and the games they contest are consistently absorbing. I don’t ask much more, and I don’t think fiddling with sports to make sure the “right” tactics win is the point. If the tennis were boring and the audiences dropping, I might agree that something needs to change, but as it is men’s tennis is in a fantastic state. Ain’t broke, don’t fix it.
If I find myself suddenly pining for the tennis of the 80s, there’s always replays.
Phil said that like six years ago when Tiger was playing with a steel shafted driver that was like 320ccs. Tiger has long since upgraded, and plenty of other players on Tour have won with Nike equipment.
To recap the information from the link: The USGA and PGA tried back in the late 80s to attack the issue of technological advantage. Specifically, they tried to take on Karsten Solheim and his Ping Eye2 irons, which were cast, not forged, and had “U”-shaped grooves. It was alleged that these grooves were allowing players to spin the ball better, which made a real difference when hitting out of the rough. But Solheim sued, and the organizations backed down, because anti-trust laws in the United States precluded that sort of attempt to block technology from playing out in the free market.
So the lesson that the USGA and R&A learned was that attempting to limit technological advancement had to be done very carefully, and in concert with the equipment manufacturers.
Notice, they are about to try again to limit the effect of the “U”-shaped groove. I predict similar legal mayhem.
For tournament play in golf, I have long advocated use of the “tournament” ball. I think that it is silly that, in tennis, everyone uses the same ball in the tournament, but in golf, you get to use whatever ball you want to. Come up with a specification for a ball that limits the ability to drive it ginormous yardage, and is not so soft that anyone can spin it a gazillion rpm. Then let the manufacturers produce the “tournament ball” and each tournament can decide which manufacturer’s ball to use for a given tournament. For that tournament, everyone uses the same ball.
I know. Phil was referring to other equipment then. I honestly don’t know enough about Tiger’s other equipment to comment on it as things stand now, but he isn’t using the best ball, IMHO.
What somebody said upthread is a big part of it, I think - no amateur, especially no amateur as bad as I am, is going to want to play with a gutta percha ball and a niblick after having played with modern equipment, because golf is hard for anybody and it’s really, really hard the way people used to have to play it.
Sometimes the old ways seem nostalgic.
Somewhere, I think it’s New York, they have baseball teams that play by the 1890 rules.
A lot of things are different, like how fouls are counted and whether spit balls are legal.
Sort of like civil war reenactments without the faux bodies.
As much as I will say that Nike One balls are just fine, there are differences between even the same line of balls, like the Titleist Pro V1 and Pro V1x. There’s of course a difference between a V1 and a One. It isn’t even debatable. And don’t get me started on the differences between clubs!
I seem to recall that in another golf related discussion, you did not believe that Tiger has changed his swing. If you’re also not able to tell the differences between balls, clubs, or swings, I’m afraid you have a LOT to learn about golf.
Sure. Golfers are the biggest suckers in retailing. You can sell them anything. They have infomercials going on 24 hours a day selling them stuff. It is all smoke and mirrors. Every golfer has a corner of his garage or basement full of golf equipment. You can not buy a swing or a game.
I don’t know about a lot to learn. i have played for over 50 years. You guys are just suckers.
Ps I won 2 Publinx tournaments. i can play a little.
I agree. I have been watching tennis for 35 years and think that the current men’s game is the most entertaining it has ever been. There is such a variety of shot now, with the drop shot and slice and topspin lob mixed in with fantastic topspin baseline play. The volley isn’t dead - but now a player has to earn the right to come to net. Come to net on a mediocre approach shot and you will get passed. I recently watched a bit of the Ashe-Connors Wimbledon final and they would hit any old crap slice (forehand and backhand) and come to net and have a good chance of winning the point. I find that boring.
And nothing was more boring than the Sampras-Ivanisevic Wimbledon finals.
Serve-volley is not dead. Haas did quite a bit again Djokovic. Serve-volley on every point is dead - but that’s fine - I much prefer the modern variety.
For amateurs, technology is a godsend. When I was a kid we had wooden racquets and tennis was just too damn difficult. Hit the ball once or twice, then retrieve it. Repeat. Modern technology has made it possible for many more people to reach some level of competence at which they can enjoy the game.
As for golf, courses have had to be modified for the pros but that’s fine - it doesn’t spoil the enjoyment of watching them play. And for us hackers it means we can hit the ball as far in our fifties as we did 30 years ago.