If the latter, do you think the distance "problem" is more properly blamed on club technology or ball technology?
Many of the game's experts - most prominently Jack Nicklaus - argue for dialing back golf ball technology as a way to reverse distance gains they believe are bad for the game's future and dismissive of the game's past.
A while back the USGA asked several golf ball manufacturers to create prototype balls that don't fly as far as the balls currently on the market. The request wasn't a prelude to any rules changes, the USGA told manufacturers, just a chance to collect and compare data.
Next month, those prototype shorter golf balls will be tested by Canadian Tour players, the Winnipeg Free Press reported (hat tip: Geoff Shackelford) earlier this week:
What we do know is that the Tour, after one of its events next month, is going to have a couple dozen of its players come back on a Monday for some research.They'll play in what could be termed a one-day tournament. It might be better termed a lab experiment, and they'll all play with the same kind of golf ball - one of these less-zippy models.
Word is these "prototype" balls will be anywhere from 10 to 20 percent shorter, with the 20 percent figure applying only to the hardest-hit and longest shots from the driver.
It's all hush-hush; the Canadian Tour director declined interview requests, telling the Winnipeg paper he couldn't talk about it.
The figure that jumps out is the possibility of a 20-percent dial-back on driver distance. Citing that figure probably represents a bit of an exaggeration. A 300-yard average drive dialed back 20-percent becomes a 240-yard drive. That's not going to happen.
In 2010, the tour's leading driver averages 317.7 yards. In 1980, the first year the PGA Tour kept driving distance as an official stat, the tour leader averaged 274.3 yards. That was with persimmon drivers and wound, balata balls. In 1990, the leader averaged 279.6 yards; in 2000, 301.4 yards.
Golf is never returning to persimmon drivers or wound, balata balls. Back in 2005, the USGA first contacted ball manufacturers about producing prototype balls that fly shorter distances. At that time, the USGA said it was looking for a 5- to 8-percent decrease in distance, which is far more reasonable than 10-20 percent and probably represents a good guess at the distance decrease that will be observed by the Canadian Tour testers.
And after the testing? Expect the USGA to move very slowly, with lots more testing, and much negotiating with ball manufacturers. If the governing bodies really do expect to dial back golf ball technology someday, they have to be prepared for tremendous pushback - and potential lawsuits - from the industry.
And what about average golfers? Hitting the ball too far is not a problem most of us are familiar with.
Comments
I realize I’m only one guy – only got one vote – however, I think that losing historical comparisions takes something away from the game..consequently, I’m in favor for several reasons of slowing the ball down…by the way, I’m 72 years old now and I hit my driver almost as far as I did when I was 30 – don’t feel that’s right, but that’s what happens…ball, shaft, metal heads are responsible, methinks…don’t wanna go back to hickory but don’t want to lose historical comparisions, either….
I’d be interested to see what the CanTour guys think about this. As long as the playing field is equal, I don’t see what the ‘big’ deal will be.
I’m nearly 62 years old. If I swang a golf club hard enough to hit a 250 yard drive, I’d be in traction for 6 month. There are many of us that simply can’t generate club head speeds needed to hit long drives. The “big” deal is there are more recreational golfers than pro’s and we simply cannot hit the ball 300 yards. The “big” deal is this change is for everyone. Manufacturers aren’t going to make two of the same ball. One for the recreational golfer and one for the Pro’s. The “big” deal is the pro’s will still be scoring under par, and and all recreational golfers handicap will increase substantially. Unfortunately, I can’t tell you how I really feel about this. Let’s just say I’m not in favor.
As long as this technology stays out of my bag, I’m fine with it. The fact that the USGA, who shouldn’t have any direct impact on my life or my game, can change the equipment I’m able to buy REALLY irks me. Please stay away from the rec players equipment. Or, optionally, you can start paying me too.
I am a “Life Member” of the PGA. I have dealt first handm with the USGA and the USGA’s, as the governing rules body of the game of golf, inability to protect the character and heritage of the game of golf.
Mt comparisson has always been to baseball, which at the top level, stll uses a wound ball and a wood bat, with many variations of the game, played at different levels, with various modern and “different” bats and balls.
One would think this would be simple to comprehend, not for the USGA = made up of a bunch of “out of touch” social elites!
I’m thinking that a similar issue was brought up in the 1800’s, and probably oodles more times before that, and still we don’t play with a feathery today.
My guess is that any restrictions on ball flight will first be felt by the pros, as is the case with the issue of grooves. The public is not likely to be affected for a dozen or more years if the USGA makes changes.
Golf courses should not have to keep up with ball technology. The courses that are long enough today for the pros, are too long to be fully played by the public. Logically, reducing ball flight, or simply limiting further distance gains is a good and smart policy.
I would hope that the USGA would impose any restrictions on further improvement, or as mentioned, a 5-8 percent reduction, for the pros, and the pros only.