NRJyzr, on 13 December 2017 - 09:23 AM, said:
jmck, on 13 December 2017 - 09:14 AM, said:
bladehunter, on 13 December 2017 - 08:07 AM, said:
grm24, on 13 December 2017 - 01:26 AM, said:
jmck, on 11 December 2017 - 11:58 AM, said:
Forget ball speed. Set a minimum for ball spin and you're done.
Please explain how that can be accomplished equally for all. Especially since everyone swings different, at different speeds and does not make contact in the same way, or on the sweet spot at all times. Some new form of physics? It's not so easy as simply setting some random standard that will impact everyone the same. It can't be done. There isn't some magic formula the USGA/R&A can implement that will be equitable across the board for all swing speeds to reduce distance. That whole law of unintended consequences tends to complicate things as it pertains to the real world. Golf included.
well.... sure.. BUT same argument can be used now to be in favor of the rollback.... no way that the current ball is equitable for all swing speeds as is.... slower you swing the easier it is to reach the magical +4 +5 aoa numbers.... spin comes wayyy down then and carry goes wayy up for any speed with the current ball and its ability to get to sub 2000 rpms... .... very rare to see a guy swinging 120 with that type aoa... so its stacked currently to even up the fields... fair isnt fair... or is it that current tech isnt fair ? maybe rollback woildnt be fair either..but it wont be any more unfair thats for sure...
edit- whcih is why im still in favor of driver size rollback more so than ball.... take the head back to 360cc or less and shrink 3 wood back down too and we wont see as many swing all out... problem solved...distance potential is still there but realistically far fewer guys acheive the 320 carries we see now ...
and for those of you who say that doesnt matter... why are you playing that huge driver then ? i can tell you why.. it hits the ball straighter and you can miss it all over and still get good distance...
I agree that it would've been nice if they capped driver size at 350cc or so. I wouldn't want them to make that change now though, as 460cc is something that makes the game a lot easier for recreational golfers. The nice thing about setting a minimum for ball spin is that it has a negligible effect on recreational golfers--heck you could even argue that it would be an overall positive for your average 15 handicapper: maybe a few more fairways hit, definitely easier to hold greens with irons, easier to chip and pitch, all while giving up little if any distance off the tee. Couple that with adding back some of the premium on shot making and ball control that's disappeared from the pro game over the last ~15 or so years, and you have a solution to "rolling back the ball" that doesn't touch ball speed rules AND doesn't negatively effect your average 15 handicapper.
My driver combo is a GBB SZ with an old Matrix Black Tie 7M3. Short of a first gen SLDR it's about as low spin of a combo as you can get. Not only that, but I try to hit the thing about 3/4" high and towards the toe because it spins even less there than it does in the actual center of the face. I'm not anti-technology, and I'm not concerned with Jack Nicklaus' legacy or any other such garbage as that. But the pro game has absolutely changed for the worse, at least IMO. We're heading towards a future where everyone on tour looks like DJ, and the Corey Pavins of the world have absolutely no chance. I'm a lot closer to DJ than to Corey Pavin, but I still think that's a shame. And aside from that, anyone who doesn't think ball control and shot making at the highest levels of the game has been de-emphasized thanks to new technology simply hasn't been around the game long enough to see the changes. Again, at least IMO that's a shame, and a spinier ball fixes it without hurting the recreational golfers who don't care a whit about any of this.
I'm sorry dude, but there's nothing nice about setting a minimum limit on ball spin. It's just screams "jealousy of long hitters and the need to reign them in."
And the wound balls replaced by the "new breed" weren't as super spinny as you seem to want to see. Ball tests done at the time showed that, while the wound balls spun more, they didn't do so at crazy levels. They weren't even that much shorter; the avg distance change from wound to solid core was only about 5.5 yds.
The curvature, or lack thereof, of the modern golfball isn't due to spin. It's aerodynamics and dimple patterns. Remember when the HX balls first showed on the scene? The Senior Tour guys hated them, they couldn't get them to move as much as they wanted. Hence balls like the CTU30.
Are you going to want to legislate aerodynamics, also?
Well, yeah, let's legislate aerodynamics. Aerodynamics and spin are closely related. Saying "The curvature, or lack thereof, of the modern golfball isn't due to spin. It's aerodynamics and dimple patterns" makes no sense. Spin/curvature comes from
aerodynamics, at least as much as it comes from materials/construction. If you don't like the sound of putting minimum spin number on balls, the same result can be achieved by establishing a minimum depth for dimples. Modern dimples are SUPER shallow compared to what was standard in the balata days.
As for spin rates, the old balls added ~750-1250 rpms on a driver, depending on s/s. Again, I think it's totally reasonable to legislate ball spin, just like we currently do with ball size, weight, and speed. Add 1000 rpms back to the ball and the pros have to think twice before mindlessly bashing driver...BUT your average 15 handicapper doesn't notice that extra 1000 rpms at all.
I'm not "jealous" of long hitters. I just think that when technology allows this shot
to go 305 yards and finish a foot off the fairway it's time to do something. Limiting the cc of clubs is one way to approach it, but I think you could get similar results by, oh I don't know, legislating ball aerodynamics for example, without hurting recreational golfers one bit.