[ForkaB]

I know this isn't on the topic, but since others have brought it up, I'm going to post this.  As a new member of the board of the First Tee of Pittsburgh, I want to clarify a couple of things.

The mission of the First Tee is not to grow the game of golf, from their home page it is:

To impact the lives of young people by providing learning facilities and educational programs that promote character development and life-enhancing values through the game of golf.

If golf grows because of it, that is a side benefit.

In Pittsburgh last year, over 4000 kids came to First Tee functions and facilities.  Of those, over 2500 took 9 hours of life skills and golf classes and passed tests (written and golf) to earn their "credentials" from the program.  I doubt there were 2500 youngsters caddying in the entire state of Pennsylvania.  Even if none of those kids ever picked up a golf club again it would be a success.  Fortunately many of them will.

Go to the First Tee website and read about it and then tell me why the USGA or any organization shouldn't be supporting it.

John

I am fully in support of the FTF because I am a member of the Church of Golf.  As a committed Member, however, I know that any sort of evangelical programme has not only a stated mission, but an implicit one--i.e. expanding the ranks of the faithful.

Pat

You agree with me, but not the USGA.  Please understand that.  They are the ones trying to grow the game--I could care less (in fact, if you held my feet to the fire, I'd admit that I'd prefer the game to shrink rather than grow, if it is going to grow in the manner that it has over my lifetime....).

I'd love for more people to understand and embrace the historical priniciples of the game--as you and I and John V and the great majority of the people on this site have learned it over the years--but this ain't going to happen, for a number of reasons that have been posited and debated on this site for many years.

I stand by what I said in my previous post.

[TEPaul]

"TEPaul,
There was a time when the USGA and the manufacturers were in perfect harmony and the game was protected, preserved, and continued to grow."

Patrick:

I realize that and have for years as my Dad worked for Spalding as well as knew practically everyone in the regulatory part of golf back then.

"A hand in glove relationship needs to be re-established, but, it's the manufacturers who are resisting because they know it will hurt their bottom lines, at least for the first few quarters, and maybe over the long haul."

I realize that a better or more cooperative relationship should be reestablished between the manufacturers and the regulatory bodies and a number of years ago I offered a unique suggestion that I still believe would go a long way to accomplishing that.

The manufacturers aren't worried about their bottom line over the next few quarters. Unless hundreds of thousands of golfers drop out of the game in the next few quarters golfers will be buying golf balls just as they have been.

The manufacturers resist for a single fairly obvious reason, in my opinion. If the first distance roll-back in golf's history is accomplished by the regulatory bodies that will begin to effectively expose the one massive advertizing "con-job" most all ball manufacturers have been doing on the golfing public for like forever. And that is to constantly say through advertizing that their golf ball is longer than the other manufacturers or the longest ball in golf. That is perhaps the most effective golf ball advertizing subject there's ever been and the last thing any of the golf ball manufacturers want to do at this point is to have something happen that will begin to expose the fallacy of that BS! If that happens the time will be nigh when they can no longer believably advertize their golf ball as longer or the longest. Who would believe them? If for the first time an across-the-board distance roll-back is legislated and effected it's obvious that both a distance cap has been accomplished and distance increase is no longer to be expected as it has heretofore been throughout the history of golf.

Not unless, of course, both the manufacturers decide to manufacture and market "non-conforming" balls and equipment in contravention of the USGAs' I&B rules and regs and the golfing public buys it en masse.

[DMoriarty]

TEPaul asked:
 

How do you know what distance benefit slow swing speed players are reaping from low spin rate balls?

Personal experience, common sense, anecdote, expert opinion, a very basic understanding of scientific principles, etc. . . .

Do you realize most all slow swing speed players have been using low spin rate balls for over 40 years?

Yes, I do realize this, but think that they were knowingly or unknowingly giving up some carry distance in order to: 1) Keep mishits more on line; 2) get more roll; and 3) save money.   I think the last factor is particularly important given the lack of durability over the old soft ball.

Do you realize that most high swing speed players have been using low spin rate balls for not more than 10 years?

Yes, because technology has made these balls more controllable and responsive at very, very high swing speeds, thus they have reaped a huge advantage which is not available to the rest of us . . .

First of all, I did not say it may be possible to push back on the longest hitters by putting a lower limit on swing speed. That would be impossible to do anyway. I did say it may be possible to somewhat reign in distance for high swing speed players if some some limitation was put on the MINIMUM amount of SPIN RATE a golf ball could have.

This was unfortunate miscommunication on my part, and if I caused confusion then I apologize.   You of course said a limit on the minimum spin rate.  You also said that such a limit on the minimum spin rate limitation might not hurt slower swing players.  If this is the case, then slower swing players must not be getting a benefit of the slow spin ball.

Secondly, you seem to be saying that slow swing speed players did not benefit from a low spin rate ball like the high swing speed player has.

Yes ,this is exactly what I am saying.

I don't think you can say that as the slow swing speed player was apparently never subjected to the distance diminishing phenomenon the high swing speed player was when using a high spin rate ball.

But the slow swing player is subject to the opposite phenomenon.  The slow swing player needs spin to get the lift necessary to maximize his carry.  

As the titleist article states, lift is created by backspin, ball speed, or some combination of the two.   Slow swingers dont generate the ball speed so spin is a positive in getting the necessary lift to acheive more carry.   With the low spin balls, they are stuck with their usual slow ball speed plus they loose spin which gives them lift.  

I dont understand why this is such a sticking point for you.  After all, you acknowledged as much when you noted that the minimum speed limit might not hurt the slower swinger.  

It looks to me like Brent Hutto said high spin rate balls carry farther than low spin rate balls. I believe the opposite to be true, at least for high swing speed players.

Brett said this only in reference to slow speed players.  He said that spin hurts the carry for high speed players.  I think Brett and I are on the same page here.  

In this thread you stated that these low spin rate balls (ProVs) result in some "explosive effect" for high swing speed players. To me this connotes that with a high swing speed player there is some disporportionate distance increase in relation to swing speed increase at some point in a high swing speed player's swing speed. I called the USGA Tech Center and asked them about that and they said they believe that is just not true and the distance result to increased swing speed is bascially linear.

Tom, I have explained again and again what I meant, but apparently I havent been clear so let me try again.  Only the best players with the fastest swing speeds (and best matching equipment) can fully take advantage of the new balls.  They can swing harder without ballooning the ball, and they can generate the necessary lift through their incredible swing speed.  They not only hit the ball farther and straight, but their distance is accomplished mostly through carry.

In contrast the technology is effectively above the slower swingers head.  Ballooning was never a problem for them, but with the new ball they dont as much needed lift from the backspin to maximize their carry.  

An analogy.  Bugatti recently built the new fastest car in the world.  One problem is that at very high speeds the car lifts into the air, so before going to top speed the driver must activate a special wing which effectively cuts the lift so the car stays on the ground.  Obviously such a wing on normal cars is not only unnecessary, but also slightly inefficient.   That is what these low spin balls do, they cut down on lift, allowing the fastest of the fast to function at a level which was impossible before.   But they dont help my wife's Passat one bit because too much lift has never been a problem for the chunky Passat.    
 

[TEPaul]

"But the slow swing player is subject to the opposite phenomenon.  The slow swing player needs spin to get the lift necessary to maximize his carry.  

As the titleist article states, lift is created by backspin, ball speed, or some combination of the two.  Slow swingers dont generate the ball speed so spin is a positive in getting the necessary lift to acheive more carry.  With the low spin balls, they are stuck with their usual slow ball speed plus they loose spin which gives them lift.  

I dont understand why this is such a sticking point for you.  After all, you acknowledged as much when you noted that the minimum speed limit might not hurt the slower swinger."

David:

I'll tell you precisely why it's a sticking point with me. It's becaue I believe it is total horseshit and I don't care what that Titleist website says about spin rate, drag, lift, trajectory, carry distance, roll or whatever. There may be some accuracy to what they're saying about aerodynamics but the reality in play is not what they may be implying and apparently what you and a Brent Hutto seem to believe. Just peruse some of the articles listed in that website that explain over and over again why distance should neither be limited nor rolled back. Where do you think Titleist is coming from on this issue anyway?  

Furthermore, I played about twenty years of tournament golf and I was one of just a few starting around 1980 who almost always used a two piece solid ball (low spin rate) in competition, even if occasionally I would use a three piece wound ball (Titleist or Slazenger balata) in some conditions (dry conditons). The only two tournament players in the last twenty years around here who were any good who used low spin rate two piece hard balls were me and Mike Rose. We both uese Slazengers for years and we always kidded each other that we were the only ones who did, and interestingly enough our short games were quite different from the rest for obvious reasons.

I have always been a slow swing speed player (actually a remarkably slow swing speed player for the level I played at all those years). I doubt my swing speed was anywhere near 100 mph. And I can tell you from playing both types of balls that I hit those two piece hard balls (low spin rate) higher and definitely no lower and with somewhat more carry distance with every club in the bag than I did those high spin rate three piece balatas (Titleist balatas and Slazenger balatas). Matter of fact the only problem I ever had with the two piece low spin rate hard balls I almost always played is it is basically impossible to keep them down particularly with short irons. So as far as the slow swing speed player goes I wasn't much different than that except obviously I was a whole lot more consistent in my ball striking than the slow swing speed handicap golfer.

So why don't you tell me what you think that was all about? If you feel like telling me I must have been seeing things for twenty years or that I'm not telling the truth----then fine---in that case this discussion on this subject between you and me is over.

Furthemore, if a higher spin rate creates so much lift and a higher trajectory (as the Titleist site you're fond of referring to says) why don't you tell me why it technically is then that the high swing speed players hit high spin rate balls so flat and low for the first 100 yards or so before they launch like a Lear Jet? Seems to me you (and Brent Hutto and perhaps Titleist) have a quite different idea about what trajectory and overall carry distance means than I do.

This (the high spin rate ball hit at a high swing speed) by the way is pretty much the opposite of a maximum carry maximum distance ball flight and the USGA Tech Center for some unknown reason seems to confirm the truth of everything I've just said above. And if both the USGA Tech Center and me are in some way at odds in this evaluation with something in the Titleist website that would not surprise me in the slightest.  

[TEPaul]

"After all, you acknowledged as much when you noted that the minimum speed limit might not hurt the slower swinger."

David:

Again, I acknowledged no such thing. What the hell is 'the minimum speed limit'? Is that something in Nascar?  

"An analogy.  Bugatti recently built the new fastest car in the world.  One problem is that at very high speeds the car lifts into the air, so before going to top speed the driver must activate a special wing which effectively cuts the lift so the car stays on the ground.  Obviously such a wing on normal cars is not only unnecessary, but also slightly inefficient."  

David:

Maybe you should just dispense with your hypothetical graphs and analogies to Bugatti race cars in this discussion on golf balls, swing speeds and distance. Does the latest Bugatti race car you mentioned spin on its horizontal axis in relation to the earth as a golf ball does?

"That is what these low spin balls do, they cut down on lift, allowing the fastest of the fast to function at a level which was impossible before."

No, David, it was not impossible for the fastest of the fast to function at that level before. It was very possible and that's why the Tech Center mentioned that if a Davis Love had hit a two piece hard ball (low spin rate like an old Pinnacle) with the equipment he has today he would hit it about as far as he hits the ProV he uses today.

It has always been very possible for high swing speed players to get the trajectory and carry distance they do today with the low spin rate ProV type ball, they merely chose not to play those old low spin rate two piece balls all those years for a reason (they felt too hard around the green) that has nothing whatsover to do with this subject of distance in the context of high or low spin rate golf balls.

[TEPaul]

"Tom, I have explained again and again what I meant, but apparently I havent been clear so let me try again.  Only the best players with the fastest swing speeds (and best matching equipment) can fully take advantage of the new balls.  They can swing harder without ballooning the ball, and they can generate the necessary lift through their incredible swing speed.  They not only hit the ball farther and straight, but their distance is accomplished mostly through carry."

David:

Yes, you have explained again and again what you meant, and yes, it's true you haven't been all that clear about it sometimes either. But I do know what you are trying to say here and I have known it from the beginning, and over and over again I've both said I neither agree with you nor do I feel you are looking at this entire issue correctly.

In my opinion the slow swing speed player's carry and overall distance with a low spin rate golf ball is commensurate in a proportional sense given his skill level with the carry and overall distance of the high swing speed player with a low spin rate golf ball given his akill level. Obviously, in this swing speed context I mean that a higher swing speed player has proportionately more skill than a low swing speed player.

Futhermore, you are the one who mentioned this "explosive effect" of the high swing speed player at some swing speed of swing speed range over 109 mph. The USGA denies the validity of that. Apparently in the last few pages you've chosen to ignore that. Why is that? Could it be that you're basically incapable of admitting on here that you are wrong about something?

[DMoriarty]

TEPaul said

I'll tell you precisely why it's a sticking point with me. It's becaue I believe it is total horseshit and I don't care what that Titleist website says about spin rate, drag, lift, trajectory, carry distance, roll or whatever.
. . .
 If you feel like telling me I must have been seeing things for twenty years or that I'm not telling the truth----then fine---in that case this discussion on this subject between you and me is over.
. . .
Maybe you should just dispense with your hypothetical graphs and analogies to Bugatti race cars in this discussion on golf balls, swing speeds and distance. Does the latest Bugatti race car you mentioned spin on its horizontal axis in relation to the earth as a golf ball does?
. . .
 Why is that? Could it be that you're basically incapable of admitting on here that you are wrong about something?

Tom,  

Reading your three posts and particularly these quoted excerpts, I suspect that I must have hit a nerve with you yet again.  I assure you that none of this is personal with me, and I have no intention of making it so.  I am merely trying to understand this whole distance issue.    

It seems one sticking point is my use of the term "explosive" to describe the benefits the fastest swinger receive from the new low spin balls.  I think the term fits, but it is certainly your perogative to disagree with my word choice.  But this disagreement is purely semantics and really not worth my bickering over.  My points remain whether or not you accept my characterization of the benefits as "explosive."

For the record, I am by no means telling you that you "have been seeing things for twenty years" or that you are lying.   Nonetheless, I am sure you understand that yours is but one personal experience and that, given the number of variables involved, it would be unreasonable for us to accept your singular experience as the last word on this complicated subject.  

As for admitting when and where I am wrong, I'll be glad to if it will further the discussion.  Early in this thread and in the past I have stated my belief that low spinning balls become relatively more efficient at higher swing speeds.  You asked the USGA about this and they told you that they found that the distance gain for these balls is linear even at high swing speeds.  It looks like I was wrong about this, so I have since been assuming a linear distance progression.  

Pardon me if my graph and Bugatti analogy did not help you understand my position.  The graph is "hypothetical" in the sense that I do not have exact data for two balls, but  the point remains the same, especially when we assume linear distance progressions.   You might note that JohnV seperately  created ball data using what he felt were plausible assumptions and while the slopes of our lines are slightly different, we essentially come to the same result.  

I will gladly address the rest of your points in a civilized and respectful manner and trust that you will do me the same courtesy.

[TEPaul]

"I will gladly address the rest of your points in a civilized and respectful manner and trust that you will do me the same courtesy."

David:

Thanks, but that's OK---I think we've both made all our points and pretty much answered each others points.

Onward and upward to the next subject as long as it's not Moment of Inertia. On that one I have virtually zero idea or opinion. To me it sounds like some kind of momentary pathological lethargy but if the USGA can use that to control or rollback the distance spike somehow, I'm all for it.  

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()