Jump to content
TESTERS WANTED! ×

storm319

Member
  • Posts

    328
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by storm319

  1. Bryson?! He went from averaging 291 to 310 (lead the tour that year) over a single off season by adding nearly 50 lbs and bulking up. I wonder what equipment innovation that happened in 2020 that saw only him add 20 yards to his average? Hmmmm BTW, all of those examples of having current pros hit a handful of shots with old equipment vs past results from HOF golfers who were tuned in with that equipment is not a realistic comparison. Give the new guys time to adapt and the results will be very different.
  2. Actually the test launch conditions are only used for calibration using a control ball manufactured by Bridgestone. From there, the calibrated swing is used to test the submitted ball and technically the only limitation for the sample ball is the total distance under that calibrated swing. Dean Snell mentioned a carry time limit in the past, but there is no mention of it in the USGA's test procedure. So basically this proposal will change the speed and delivery of the club in their test procedure (the distance limit will remain the same). https://www.usga.org/content/dam/usga/pdf/2019/equipment-standards/TPX3006 Overall Distance and Symmetry Test Protocol.pdf
  3. Spin is not explicitly part of the ODS so it will depend on how the manufacturer chooses to fall within the new limit. Could they accomplish this by designing a ball that spins more? less efficient dimple pattern? less resilient/softer core material? less resilient/softer mantle? Yes to any or a combination of all. Their focus will still be on a design that provides the best compromised performance across different shots, the only change will be the new target regulation that they need to fall within.
  4. I entered the current and proposed ODS calibration test conditions (using the similar 1.45 smash factor that the current test uses) into the Flightscope Optimizer and the difference was about 20 yards carry so this is probably a good estimate for what to expect (granted the USGA's calculation is different). Now, the actual realized loss will vary outside of that condition and it will also depend on how the OEMs choose to meet this new regulation because there are several areas that they can make less efficient to meet this new target. What is an almost certainty is that the vast majority of impacted players (and OEMs) will work towards making up some if not all of that loss. Ultimately this does nothing to address the incentives that drive (no pun intended) what some people feel is an overemphasis on distance.
  5. If you can watch this and honestly still believe that fairway conditions are not contributing, then I don’t know what to say… As previously stated, mowing the fairways longer does not cost anything (if anything it probably reduces costs). While it is true that the USGA does not control all elite course setups and that they have no desire to regulate it with an explicit rule, they have been one of the biggest offenders given that the US Open tends to have the lowest mowed fairways. Changing their global height recommendations (currently .35-.5” and US Open setups are commonly half that) and leading by example could produce some of the results they are looking for.
  6. Pretty good run considering that it is nearly 500 years old! What is ironic is that the R&A had no problem cutting Prestwick from the rota even though it was the original host for the first 11 Open Championships. Why did they drop it? Not enough room for the gallery.
  7. I think you are overexaggerating the problem. There are over 30,000 courses world wide. There are maybe 100-200 courses that host men's professional events and few of these are at risk financially. The need to lengthen to keep up with distance increases is simply not a reality for the vast majority of courses.
  8. This is more like moving the starting line back 5m in the 100m. Ripping off the bandaid off would be a far greater rollback than this proposal. Most that support a rollback want a permanent solution, not a moving target that will result in the exact same argument 15-20 years from now (granted the argument continuing is inevitable).
  9. and no course (including ANGC) needs to do this, they choose to rather than simply changing par for a single week per year.
  10. Not all courses are equal and distance is not the only way to challenge players. Here are a few relatively recent examples of a "short" major venue challenging pros: 2010 US Open - Pebble Beach - 7040 - Winner: Graeme McDowell (E) 2012 US Open - Olympic Club - 7170 yards - Winner: Webb Simpson (+1) 2013 US Open - Merion - 6996 yards - Winner: Justin Rose (+1) ...and just for fun, here is the longest course in US Open history (prime example of what I think @GolfSpy MPR was getting at): 2017 US Open - Erin Hills - 7,741 yards - Winner: Brooks Koepka (-16)
  11. Average swing speeds on tour are noticeably faster. Part of that is due to longer shafts and lower static weights, but part of it is definitely the player and optimization that did not exist back then.
  12. Just to clarify, ANGC has purchased around 200 acres of adjacent land in the last two decades, but very little of it allocated to expansion of the primary course. Part of it has been for Master's logistics, some to build lodging for Master's players and non-resident members, some potentially for a 2nd full length course, and the rest to expand the buffer between the club and the rest of the city. Ultimately, my solution to #13 is simple...move up the tee box a little and change it to a par 4 for one week per year.
  13. Again, the pro game may look different, but all are governed under the same set of rules (until recently). MLRs are fine for adapting to certain conditions (like weather/environmental accommodations), but the use of these to effectively create equipment bifurcation is undermining the USGA's greatest accomplishment. I am not concerned about established pros as they will adapt and be supported by the big 5 ball OEMs. I am also not concerned about the recreational ams as there appears to be no impact other than the potential for big OEMs to pass on some of the added costs that this will bring. The demographic that will likely be challenged by this the most will be those in the middle (mid-high level ams, working/aspiring pros). The line between MLR adoption vs not will not be clean and may bring upon a lot of confusion and potentially some barriers. Given that there is likely to be low retail demand for this new MLR spec'd ball and the fact that the big OEMs have historically not been fond of offering products that don't sell, there are likely to be availability issues for these balls for players that may be forced to compete with them. Barriers to entry in these transitional gray areas could have an impact on future talent pools. Not only did the USGA not make a compelling argument (IMHO) that a rollback was necessary or quantify a goal (or even define "desirable" or "sustainable"), this proposal is not going to solve their perceived problems while creating new problems/barriers for the game. If sustainability was their primary concern, the proposed rollback would be much more drastic (not to mention the fact that Whan mentioned needing to act now so that they do not pass the burden into the future for all global courses even though this proposal really only impacts a fraction of a percentage of all courses in the world). Ultimately the USGA has a failed track record with respect to rolling back equipment regulations and I do not have faith that this will be any different.
  14. Sorry, missed that. Much of what I said was still relevant in 2018 as we knew the mechanisms they would use to enforce, just didn’t know if it would be adopted globally or with a limited scope.
  15. Not to mention that neither the course length nor driving distance differences that we are talking about here will really have a direct correlation to pace of play.
  16. The USGA increased the diameter minimum and max weight in the early 1930’s and the reverted the weight back the the previous restriction due to public outcry. The R&A didn’t adopt the rule for their tournaments until the 1976 joint rules venture and globally until 1990. While increased diameter does increase drag on the ball, it also has the unintended consequences of being more impacted by wind and raising the CG which can make it easier for a player to hit. Since the advent of the ODS, the USGA no longer needs to regulate any physical properties of the ball, they simply regulate the end result which effectively is a catch all.
  17. Intent is really irrelevant to the end result. Also, tax implications (or lack their of) drive NPO status more than anything and does not absolve an organization of financial motivations (every major US professional sports league is also an NPO and I don’t think anyone would argue that they are not financially motivated). As for course lengthening trends, the USGA report showed that the vast majority of course lengthening occurs between 1930 and 1990. The 90th percentile average increase since 1990 has been ~100 yards. The reality is that it is a relatively small percentage of courses that are have lengthened in recent years and even then it hasn’t been a drastic as some people are making it out to be. Also, maintenance costs do not necessarily scale with the playing length of the course. Ultimately, I agree with @GolfSpy MPR in that lengthening the course simply challenges the player to hit it longer which just exacerbates the problem. Many pain points for courses have been self-inflicted.
  18. I think you are greatly underestimating the effort and investment that will be needed from an R&D perspective (while I don’t doubt that the big 5 have been anticipating this, I am sure they have been limited on what they can do to this point without a definitive target). Also, this is not going to be a rush to spit something out in the next couple of years and then they are done. The big OEMs are going to be investing in dual R&D workstreams for the foreseeable future. OEMs are constantly optimizing designs under the current ODS conditions and those have been consistent for nearly 20 years!
  19. None of what you mention are part of the rules of golf. Condition differences that exist outside of the rules of golf are completely separate. The greatest accomplishment of the USGA has been the unification of the game under one set of rules and now they are choosing to effectively throw that away and great several new problems for this proposal that won’t even solve their perceived problems.
  20. 1. If you have been paying attention to these discussions over the years, no not everyone agrees that equipment needs to be “reigned in”. Universal gains due to equipment were effectively limited by the time the USGA/R&A released their joint statement on distance in 2002. Since then, gains due to equipment since have been based on optimization. As for the golf ball, all balls have been subject to the same regulations since 1976. Basically, equipment already was reigned in long ago, some simply disagree with where the limits were set. 2. Enforcement of the new rule will be no different than it is today. The new MLR will likely be similar to the one ball condition simply pointing to a 2nd conforming list and models will be identified based on the side stamp. The MLR will likely lead to inconsistent implementation/usage of the rule (while not intended, there is nothing preventing a local club from applying the rule which happened at my cousin’s club championship when they adopted the new groove condition). Btw, Web.com?! What rock have you been living under? 3. The transition areas of competition is where this is going to be messy. At least with the groove rollback, the ultimate intent was global adoption and the RBs got cooperation from the OEMs to effectively stop production of the old groove spec by 2010 so availability was less of a barrier than I expect ball availability to be with this bifurcated approach. The mixed competitions are likely to apply the MLR and those pros without consistent OEM support will be at a disadvantage which will likely hurt future talent pools (granted not really a problem for established pros today). What will be interesting will be how the PGA Tour handles events like the PB Pro Am if they adopt this (which given their challenged position with LIV I am sure they will to garner support from the RBs). 4. ANGC has been begging the RBs for this for years so they will undoubtably adopt this for the 2026 Masters.
  21. 1. I am willing to bet that there has been less direct dialog with the manufacturers than you think (likely just submitted comments as the process dictates which few would not consider to be an active participant in the process). It is clear that the USGA has been aiming to rollback for a while and this whole “process” has seemed more about due diligence to reduce legal exposure than an honest attempt at deciding whether it was necessary (keep in mind that they had a pilot tourney with a limited flight ball in 2010). 2. There is no need to add rules to regulate course conditioning. What they should have been doing for years was lead by example at the US Open which has been more of a model for unsustainable conditioning (especially with respect to fairway heights which Mike Davis had been called out on before). Set a good example and then work with the relatively small number of stakeholders to agree on best practices to avoid rule changes in other areas to compensate. 3. This MLR approach is going to be a mess for the transition stages between recreational and elite competition. Comparisons to other sports really aren’t relevant given the fact there is generally a clear delineation between different levels of play that golf does not always have (ex mixed events with both pros and amateurs). There will likely be little retail demand for a shorter ball which will give OEMs little incentive to produce much more than what is needed to support the pro tours, so this will likely create a barrier for amateurs looking to transition or low level/aspiring pros which will likely impact future talent pools. Basically, they are creating several new problems for the game but this proposal is unlikely to solve the perceived problems that they believe distance increases pose.
  22. The example I like to give is the Callaway GBB which retailed for $500 in 1995 (CPI puts this at nearly $1000 in 2023 dollars). There seems to be at least one post on the major forums annually with this same question, however there are several past examples that illustrate that driver prices today are not nearly as bad as some perceive.
  23. Doubtful as Titleist raised the price of the 2021 line to $52.99 at the start of the year. My guess is that they are not in a hurry to clear inventory likely due to the shortages and high demand that we saw over the past year. Srixon dropped the price of the 2021 ZStar line to $34.99 recently which is probably the best deal you’ll find for a big 5 urethane option.
  24. Actually I just found a review from plugged in golf from March of 2015 with the same side stamp so it may be older. Either way I believe this version was an off the shelf offering from Foremost that was also produced for at least 10 other DTCs (all parties to the Acushnet lawsuit). There is a good chance that the prior gen Maxfli Tour was also the same ball.
  25. Tony did a side by side Ball Lab of both versions for those who are interested: https://mygolfspy.com/ball-lab-vice-pro-golf-ball-review/
×
×
  • Create New...