Jump to content
TESTERS WANTED! ×

storm319

Member
  • Posts

    328
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by storm319

  1. ESPN did a sports science segment with Rory 10 years ago: https://www.espn.com/video/clip/_/id/10737949
  2. You clearly didn’t read the test protocol or watch the video. There are two tests that make up the ITR: robotics swing and canon. The robotic swing is performed similarly to any other robotic test and only initial ball speed, launch angle, and spin are taken (my guess is so that the calculation can remain consistent and not rely on the launch monitor OEMs calcs). The canon test is more focused on aerodynamics given that those are basically not in play for the robotic swing test. Would it be ideal to track the full flight of the ball when testing? Sure, but it is not practical given the volume that the USGA has to test annually (currently around 1200 submissions on the current list and I’d imagine that there are some submissions that fail). Keep in mind that the choice to test fully indoors is an attempt at controlling the environmental variables that ultimately make testing outdoors difficult (potential for the environmental conditions to potentially cause an otherwise non-conforming to pass or vice versa which may be unfair to some submitters). Ultimately the best ideal environment would be testing in a massive hangar where the full flight could be tracked in a consistently controlled environment, but that really wouldn’t be plausible. I don’t disagree with your desire to regulate only physical properties of a piece of equipment, but there really is no way to evaluate things like ball speed or aerodynamic efficiency by measuring a simple physical property (the physical properties that strongly influence distance have already been limited). Ultimately the USGA has been regulating reactionary outcomes of equipment for over 80 years (first introduced with the 1942 ball velocity limitation), so unless you have any new ideas that the the various stakeholder engineers haven’t already thought of that would have the same end result, I doubt this will change.
  3. I believe the USGA commissioned the test driver. Specs are listed in their test protocol and I found an archived notice mentioning that OEMs can purchase the driver and calibration ball through them. Implementation notice: https://www.usga.org/content/dam/usga/pdf/Equipment/Archived-Notices/7-2-03 Indoor Ball Test-Phase II Implementation.pdf Current test protocol: https://www.usga.org/content/dam/usga/pdf/2019/equipment-standards/TPX3006 Overall Distance and Symmetry Test Protocol.pdf
  4. Here is a good video outlining the current ODS test protocol:
  5. Likely a combination of reduced efficiency from a ballspeed and aerodynamic perspective (possibly also higher spin).
  6. By nature par is a relatively arbitrary reference point. If players are averaging well under par on a particular hole, then par should change.
  7. Simple solution for ANGC #13…move up a tee box and change it to a par 4 for that one week per year.
  8. The equipment that Tour players have available to them falls under the same regulations as retail, so not the same as bifurcating the rules.
  9. and the simple solution if people see that as a problem is to lower par.
  10. Golf is an individual sport where there is no direct interaction between players in the field of play. None of the ball sports that you mentioned are like golf in that respect given that the ball is shared amongst competitors. Bowling may be a better comparison and player specific balls are allowed.
  11. Not surprising, but doesn’t mean we have to like or agree with it.
  12. Without searching, could you name 5 ball models off the top of your head that do not conform to the current ODS? That is kind of the point. You can’t walk into the typical big box sporting good or golf specialty retailer and find options that intend to not conform to the current limits (although I’m willing to bet that many refinished balls would fail conformance testing mainly for weight). Beyond the occasional outlier 2-piece ionomer offering (these tend to violate the weight and/or minimum diameter regulations), you probably won’t be able to find a multilayer urethane option that does is intentionally non-conforming. Time will tell with this change, but given that the USGA is likely to stop testing under the old protocol in late 2027 and if history is any indication, we will all more or less be forced to comply eventually due to lack of alternatives.
  13. Those are the Elevate Tour (1st gen of the Elevate series). OP is referring to the Elevate MPH 115 (MPH was the 3rd gen). Here is the basic lineage of the 115 class (shafts aren’t exactly the same but fairly similar): Dynalite Gold XP —> XP115 —> Elevate Tour —> Elevate ETS 115 —> Elevate MPH 115
  14. Easier said than done. Do you think that they want to manage testing new product submissions under the existing test protocols to maintain the status quo? I think it is less about the field of play rules at this point and more about none of these organizations wanting to take on regulating equipment.
  15. These are outliers. There are very few options on the market that do not conform (mainly due to low demand) and there is little reason to think that this will change.
  16. The irony of a rules advocate now advocating for people that don’t like this rule change to break the rules…
  17. Actually, the USGA listed the 125 mph speed in their March 2022 area of interest notice and the launch/spin conditions remained the same from the MLR proposal from earlier this year (and Whan mentioned the MLR approach allowed them to to be more aggressive on speed), so it wasn’t particularly difficult to predict what was coming. To be fair, the ODS is exactly that, a limit. There are plenty of balls on the list today that fall way short of the limit, so to think that every ball will right up to the limit under this new protocol initially is not realistic. We also have no idea what Srixon did with this prototype to fall within the limit under the new conditions (could have very well increased spin and used a less efficient dimple pattern that was a poor fit for Bradley and Glover). Ultimately this will redefine optimal launch conditions and players/OEMs will simply have new targets.
  18. Scaling the testing protocol to better reflect the peak is one thing, but this rollback is not that. When they updated the testing protocol in 2004 (the previous protocol was from 1976), the scaled the distance limit with it. The 2004 update didn’t result in the majority of the balls on the list being deemed non-conforming. This is not going to change the way that the game is played at the elite level, this is simply moving the starting line back a bit and essentially goading the players to put more emphasis on swinging faster to make up for the loss.
  19. Agreed that talk is cheap, but if the change was relatively minimal, would that person have made that comment? Maybe, maybe not. But this begs the question, are the potential benefits of this specific rollback decision worth the potential risks for the ruling bodies?
  20. Here is the actual blog post from Geoff Shackelford that the link was referencing (keep in mind that this pilot was in 2010). https://www.geoffshackelford.com/homepage/2010/8/19/feedback-from-usgas-prototype-ball-testing-event.html “The unmarked ball, described by both sources as having a shallow, odd dimple pattern with "a lot of flat surfacing," typically went about 20 yards shorter with the best hit drives.” “The ball did not spin much and flew unusually straight, as well as on a lower trajectory according to both sources.” “The players who enjoyed their experience said their irons flew about one club shorter, which, combined with the distance off the tee lost, meant 2-3 clubs more into greens.” “One player reported that the ball was made by Bridgestone.” “The younger player who spoke to his peers said one reported that if he had to play such a ball he'd "probably quit golf."”
  21. Tiger has followed a path similar to Jack on this topic. Basically no critiques when they were dominant and amongst the longest on tour, starts complaining when in decline and getting passed up by younger players, then very vocal when their playing career is over and their focus turned to their course design business. Rory has been so inconsistent on this topic so much that I would take what he says with a grain of salt. Initially he was against the idea of a rollback. Then his little rant during an interview when he basically said whatever happens to the pro game, just leave the recreational game alone. Then advocating for bifurcation earlier this year and now trying to down play the expected impact post decision all while parroting the same generic course lengthening talking point that the actual data contradicts. Will he be impacted by this? Sure, but given that he led the tour in driving average this year and will likely be near the top when this is adopted, he stands to benefit from the average falling back more so than his expected loss (he has admitted as much).
  22. This exaggerated perspective does not align with reality. First, course data over the past two decades does not support the course lengthening trend claims. According to the USGAs own data, the majority of course lengthening occurred pre1990. Also, no one on tour is regularly driving it 360+ nor does any data support that becoming the norm on tour in the next several decades if ever. I can’t find it right now, but someone posted data on GolfWRX showing the average par 4 2nd shot on tour being a 7 iron, not the driver wedge that those in favor of a rollback claim. The tendency for higher ranked names on tour (who tend to be longer than average) getting more tv exposer may be partially to blame for this perception. Lastly, the leaders of the ruling bodies have pretty much made it clear that this change really won’t be solving any of your perceived problems, they are simply moving the starting line back.
  23. With the COR, head size, and MOI limits, they set a limit that had not been reached yet. Ultimately people don’t miss what they never had. The groove rollback ended up being inconsequential (again what was the point) and the anchoring ban impacted so few people. This will be far more impactful and will impact far more golfers than any previous equipment regulation (except maybe the prior ball rollbacks, but again those impacted less golfers both times).
  24. You are misunderstanding bifurcation in this context. Tour issued equipment is still subject to the same regulations as retail equipment. Bifurcation would mean different regulations for different levels of play which would be a mess to navigate for future talent trying to ascend to the pro level (and potentially a financial roadblock if the OEMs don’t make it readily available at retail). Interactive team sports like baseball, basketball, football, or soccer where the ball is provided is not an apples to apples comparison because those sports have direct interaction between players where golf as an individual sport does not (it is just the player vs the course). As for bat materials in MLB, that is more about traditional aesthetics (mainly the sound) than performance as it is possible to make composite bats that perform similarly to wood from a COR perspective.
  25. The ruling bodies own data for the past two decades counters the course lengthening narrative that is primarily driving this (no point in bringing up anything from the prior century given that it has been clear that the ruling bodies do not intend to rollback distance levels prior to their 2002 joint statement line in the sand). Also, let’s not give too much credit to the ruling bodies. While they may have considered feedback on the “how”, it is clear that they did not consider any feedback on the “if” which means that the decision process was not as open as they led us to believe. Again, the PGAs and R&As have not been advocating for ANY change and being strongly against bifurcation does not mean they support a global rollback. Ultimately the ruling bodies are the ones making this change and they need to own it.
×
×
  • Create New...