Remember when golf balls were sold by "compression number?" 80, 90 and 100? What's the difference from that to what Solheim's proposing? Way back then, an 80 compression ball was variously described as "a cold weather ball, a ladies ball, or an old man's ball." 100's were for hard hitters or hot weather. 90's were for "the average" golfer, whatever that meant. A few years ago some pro did well with a Noodle "Lady" ball - super soft, or so it was assumed. Then there was the Precept Senior, the Top Flite soft ball, and others. Even the vaunted Titleist Pro V series are "soft." There's Srixon. There are at least three different flavors of Bridgestone - 5, 6, 7. Nicklaus proposed years ago that golf balls should be made to limit distance. Others have agreed. I think of way back in the dark ages of golf - Bobby Jones, Snead, Hogan, et al. They were hitting it 300 yards using the balls of the 20's and '30's. Its all about talent folks. As to re-learning how far a gold, silver or bronze ball goes off my clubface, isn't that already a question? I've advocated for years the addition of loft measurements on irons - my 27 degree club goes just as far as your 5-iron. I sure am not opposed to a standard way of measuring golf ball distance - but isn't that in some sense, what USGA does now vis a vis "conforming and non-conforming" golf balls? What did "100" compression mean anyway. I recall two studies. One from Australia, one from (I believe) from Ohio State University. The results from testing 100, 90 and 80 compression balls was that regardless of clubhead speed, the 100 compression ball traveled farther than the 90, and the 90 farther than the 80. The problem for "Joe Golfer" with the 100 compression balls was the hard feel - remember the Top Flite "Top Rock?" So sure, a really soft ball and a really high clubhead speed will likely show a reduction of distance, but how to explain the Noodle? TFlan
> Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2011 11:48:01 -0500 > From: [email protected] > Subject: Re: ShopTalk: Ping Ball Distance Rating > To: [email protected]; [email protected] > > I agree, John. > This is very interesting. > > John Solheim, like his father, is an engineer. That means he is a > problem solver. I think this is a good attempt to solve a real problem. > > The difficulty is that the USGA and R&A tend to solve emotional > problems first, then real problems if there is time to work on it. > (Sorry guys, but you have been upholding the appearance of > "tradition" while giving away the store for the past decade and a > half; can't take you seriously any more.) > > Personally, I think there are LOTS of pluses, and Solheim expresses > them very well, so I won't dwell further on them. Instead, let's look > at the minuses, the problems, his proposal introduces. > > (1) Real: Every golfer will need three different sets of yardage > distances for their clubs. It's hard enough with just one. Before > thinking about how much of a problem this poses, we need to have a > concrete proposal on what the gold, silver, and bronze yardages are. > > (2) Real: Testing. Is the USGA's "Overall Distance Standard" a > satisfactory test, and we merely change the threshold distance for > conformance? Or do we need a new test, as long as we're overhauling > the standard?
