[Jordan Wall]

...will do many things.

But, is it really gonna matter all that much??  If JB Holmes and Bubba Watson and all the long hitters are carrying bunkers by 30 and 40 yards is a distance ball really gonna make much difference??  If they lose 20 yards they still dont have to challenge the bunkers or whatever off thee tee right??  What good is it to have a distance ball if many times it wont make a difference anyways??  

Why not just leave the ball as is and make a rule stating nothing 'better' so that way when architects design a course they know the maximum yardages players will hit and everything, without having to worry about technology soon killing their designs??  Why not keep the balls as they are and just hit some older clubs without all the technology??

What would happen with shots into the green with new distance balls??  If they fly less does this mean greens will have to be softer since you will be hitting a longer club in??  These distance balls mean changing so much about the game, especially for us amatuers who cant hit the ball 300 yards anyways, so why not just leave the balls as is and just not create new superior golf balls??

btw, imagine Corey Pavin with a distance reduced golf ball... All a new ball would do is hurt the shorter players and not do much for the longer players.

I would certainly say that if the balls were left as is architects would have an easier time designing courses, plus they would not have to worry about technology wasting the architecture of their course, as many people think it has...

[Chris Kane]

Jordan, a reduced ball will not hurt shorter players (this is the biggest myth used by the pro-technology crowd) - if anything it will assist them.  If all players were to lose 10%, then the bombers like Holmes and Watson will lose more.

Even if they leave it "as it is", there is still a problem.  In 2002 the USGA and R&A, in the Joint Statement of Principles, stated that further increases in distance are undesirable.  There have been big distance gains since, yet they have done nothing.  The clubs are not making the difference you think they are - read Mike Clayton's article about the game he had with Geoff Ogilvy at Royal Melbourne, where they used a 70's driver with modern balls.  Ogilvy was hitting it just as far.

Greens won't need to be softer - the game will revert to how it was played before it was ruined by technology.

A new ball would only be used at professional and elite amateur level, so you shouldn't worry about being disadvantaged yourself.

[Peter Galea]

                     BBB - bring back balata.

[Tom Huckaby]

EPH - everyone play hickories.

 

[Garland Bayley]

As I posted on the Corey Pavin thread.
Schackelford reports in The Future of Golf that the president of TopFlite said that the distance gain is disproportionately in favor of the high speed swingers. He said that the ball can be easily dialed back and will not hurt the average golfer.

The distance 1932 thread says players were swinging 125 mph back then and the ball was only going 250.

You have to wonder if Titleist is reading Schackelford, because he says the first to patent and bring out a dialed back ball will rule the market.

[Dan Herrmann]

                    BBB - bring back balata.

Pete - NO!  I can't afford it!  If you're >10, (like me) you tend to cut these to kingdom come.  

[Tom Huckaby]

Dan - that's why we need EPH or BATH* (Bring all the Hickories) more than BBB.  One rather needs to use a softer ball anyway lest the clubs break; but can use ProV1s - they work just fine.  And no one is going to overpower any course with this equipment and any ball.  It's also damn fun.

TH

* - credit to Jordan Wall for this cool acronym.

[Jeff Fortson]

I would have a problem with limiting the golf ball...

...IF...

the current ball were not performing exponentially better for those that can swing their driver at 115mph+.  The problem with the ProV1 types (which I play with) is that those with VERY high swing speeds get WAY more out of the ball then those with slower speeds.  So much so, that I think it is competitively unfair.  

I listened to a golf talk show on Sirius radio two weeks ago that focussed on this issue when the whole USGA Walter Driver appointment came out.  The talk show hosts and their guest (James Nugent, publisher and VP of Golfweek) focussed on how rolling the ball back would destroy the game.  They were trying to scare people into believing that the USGA was going to take away equipment (i.e. balls, drivers, etc.) that help the AVERAGE golfer attain distance.  Incredibly, everyone that called in to the show was on the same page or had been instantly baptized into this line of thought and repeated the same things I continuously hear about this subject from avid amateurs.  

Comments like...

"Why is the USGA going to take distance away from me when the only real problem is the 300 guys on tour that hit it so far.  Make a rule for them, but don't penalize me because they can hit it far."

This is the biggest misconception and lie that has been fed to the masses!  The average golfer (even the average scratch golfer) will NOT be affected by a rollback in the ball.  Why?  BECAUSE THEY CAN'T SWING THE GOLF CLUB FAST ENOUGH TO BENEFIT FROM THE EXPONENTIAL DISTANCE GAINED WITH THESE BALLS.  The golfing public at large will see no change in their daily, weekly, or monthly game.  NONE!  

What I came to realize is that the people or groups that have the most at stake are the club and ball manufacturers and the magazines that rely on the marketing money of these companies to stay in business.  Oddly enough, if they all thought about it they could make plenty of money in improving balls for slower swing speeds like they did with the Laddie and NXT.  Those balls would not fall victim to any rollback.  I guess ball manufacturers are more concerned with having their ads say that their ball goes 350 yards.  They must think this is what sells balls.  I beg to differ.  The reason balls get sold is because you need them to play golf and they will still be needed even if there is a rollback.  

If anything, courses are being built bigger and more difficult to combat the exponential distance that very few can take advantage of, which in turn, makes the game more expensive and difficult for the average golfer.  

Not only does golf need a rollback in the ball, it needs some credible people to take this argument to the masses so that people understand that their game is going to be barely affected, if at all.


Jeff F.

[Tom Huckaby]

Amen, Brother Jeff.  Very, very well stated.

While I do enjoy playing with hickories, it's obviously not a practical answer for many, where a rolled-back ball would be a great answer for all, just as you state.  I was just having fun with acronyms.  

TH

[George Pazin]

I guess ball manufacturers are more concerned with having their ads say that their ball goes 350 yards.  They must think this is what sells balls.  I beg to differ.  The reason balls get sold is because you need them to play golf and they will still be needed even if there is a rollback.

There is a certain amount of genius in this utterly simple statement. Well said, Jeff.

-----

I, for one, wouldn't be too thrilled if they capped things right now. I think the damage has been done and as more and more young bucks like JB Holmes, etc., come up, they'll still be stretching the classics to accomodate them. I'd prefer a tournament ball or a rollback, in that order.

It seems to me that introducing a tournament ball could really only help ball sales. It'd be creating a new category. You'd have most golfers buying one ball or the other, but you'd probably even have some guys buying both. I'm not even that avid a golfer and I personally own 3 sets of irons, a half dozen wedges and, I think, 3 drivers. There's probably a lot of people who've been playing longer who have even more.

[Garland Bayley]

The USGA inaction has allowed cheating without cheating. I can buy a used big bertha and rockflites that I play for all my practice rounds. I can get on a swing monitor and get and optimized driver and ball with spin. Then when I play my matches, I use the optimized combination to serendipituosly get an extra stroke or two. All perfectly legal. Not the least bit fair.

[Forrest Richardson]

Bubba Watson hit a 377-yard drive recently at a testing center. The wind was about 5-6 MPH, and in his favor. A witness said the guys at the end of the field were waiting for it to come down and thought it had gone wide. Then...all of a sudden...it banged the street beyond the range and went bouncing onto a roof of a building.

377...?  I rarely design par-4s that long. Fortunately the greens are smallish.

[Doug Siebert]

But, is it really gonna matter all that much??  If JB Holmes and Bubba Watson and all the long hitters are carrying bunkers by 30 and 40 yards is a distance ball really gonna make much difference??  If they lose 20 yards they still dont have to challenge the bunkers or whatever off thee tee right??  What good is it to have a distance ball if many times it wont make a difference anyways??

Jordan,

If it is done right, it will do more than just let Holmes and Watson hit identical drives that are 20 yards (it should be more, but I'll use that figure) shorter.  If today they fly it 320 and it rolls 10, and it changed to them flying it 270 and rolling 40, it would change the way they have to play because they'd lose 50 yards of carry.

They'd lose 35 yards instead of 5 if they miss the fairway, making the FLOG strategy much less attractive.  It would spend 30 yards more on the ground, increasing the odds of catching a bunker and increasing the importance of the fairway contours in the landing area.  It wouldn't have as steep of a trajectory on the descent, meaning that cutting doglegs over trees would become more difficult without shaping the ballflight.

[Jordan Wall]

If Bubba and the big hitters get 30 yards less carry then at 377 yards he would now be hitting it only 347 yards

 

So, if manufacturers do decide to make a shortened golf ball, why not make one that brings a 360 yard carry down to say, 290 yards but also only makes the shorter player lose like 30 or something yards?   I mean, if your gonna make a new distance deducting ball isnt it true you dont wanna do like a half job where the pros are still hitting it 320-340 yards??

[Forrest Richardson]

Which brings us back to the concept of simply abolishing the wooden tee. Then....let's see them hit it 300+!

[DMoriarty]

From Titleist's patent application, linked above:

Specific embodiments of the present invention have targeted spin rates, compressions, and coefficients of lift and drag. Additionally, embodiments of golf balls according to the present invention have greater distance reduction at high ball speeds, i.e., at high swing speeds, than at lower swing speeds.

I am not so sure that the reductions would necessarily be linear, even by percentage--  In other words, it may be possible for a 10% reduction at the highest speeds to result in, say, a 5% reduction at a lower swing speed, or maybe no reduction at slow swing speeds.   Keep in mind that we are not talking about a single ball here, but an entire market of balls.  Designers may be able to target their research on improving balls for slower swing speeds without breaking the limit for higher swing speeds.

__________________
Forrest,  I have seen people hit it extraordinary distances with  some of these new drivers off the deck.  I'll bet if the USGA did away with the tee we'd soon see different maintenance on tee boxes and tweaks to the equipment/ optimization which soon would made it possible for elite players to hit it 300+ without a tee (if they cant already.)   I doubt that non-elite players would have the same luck.  

[TEPaul]

Jeff Fortson:

Most everything you said seems to be fairly in line with what I hear and read out of the USGA Tech Center, except for one thing.

You said balls like today's ProV are exponentially longer for big hitters over say 115+ mph. Exponentially longer than what? Maybe I'm not understanding what you mean by "exponentially longer" here.

Let's say a golfer hits a ball with a 100 mph swing speed 250 yards. Let's say the swing speed is increased by 5% to 105 MPH. If the distance increase is linear with the swing speed increase the 105 should hit it about 262 yards. Lets say the swing speed increases 20% to 120 mph. if distance increase is linear to swing speed increase percentage-wise that should hit a ball 300 yards. Are you saying distance increases exponentially in relation to percentage swing speed increase and that those numbers above are not realistic?

The USGA Tech Center claims that distance increase with these ProV type balls through the swing speed spectrum is linear, not exponential.

But perhaps what you really mean is now that big hitters use the same type of low spin ball that most all golfers other than elite players used to use that the distance increase in relation to swing speed increase has changed with the high mph player.

That certainly is true. However, what that really means is with the ball elite players used to use the distance relationship to swing speed was not linear between slow mph swingers and high mph swingers. Slow swingers actually hit the ball farther in relation to their swing speeds than high swing speed players.

The reasons were obvious. Almost no high swing speed players used the same kind of low spin balls almost all the low swing speed players did.

But now they do use the same type of low spin ball, and according to the USGA Tech Center now distance increase is linear to swing speed increase.

An additionally the high spin balls most all the high swing speed players used to use simply had far less than a distance enhancing trajectory when hit by high mph players compared to the trajectory of low spin rate balls hit by slow swing speed players or high swing speed players OR EVEN high spin rate balls hit by slow swing speed players.

(the latter fact, btw, just may be the final reason for the overall solution or success of a distance reduction ball for all if the physical reason it's dialled back is because it has a higher spin rate than present balls like the low spin rate ProV type).

Basically what the USGA and the manufacturers would in effect be creating with a new distance reduction higher spin rate ball is the old trajectory only higher swing speed players could get with a higher spin rate ball.

[Jordan Wall]

__________________
Forrest,  I have seen people hit it extraordinary distances with  some of these new drivers off the deck.  I'll bet if the USGA did away with the tee we'd soon see different maintenance on tee boxes and tweaks to the equipment/ optimization which soon would made it possible for elite players to hit it 300+ without a tee (if they cant already.)   I doubt that non-elite players would have the same luck.  

Have you seen Laura Davies tee off??

What is she, like 280 off the tee or something.  She never uses a tee, she builds up ground and just uses that.  The patented balls would be more effective then no wooden tees.  Plus, I know I feel it is dumb to see players hit 600 plus yard par fives in two.  That is ridculous.  With the balls used today, tees or no tees, I still think some players might be able to reach them.  All they would do is simply make drivers with heads like a three wood so they would be able to be hit off the ground, therefore without a patented ball distance wouldnt change much.

Also, Paul, do you know if these new patented balls will actually be better[/color] in some ways then the balls used today, say maybe by a better amount of spin or something??

[cary lichtenstein]

The solution is so simple:

The ball manufacturers need to dial back the expodential distance that the 125 mph swingers are getting.

Just make a ball that goes 1 yard father for every mph you generate, no more.

My swing speed is now 91 mph, I hit the driver about 230 in the air and maybe another 30 on the ground=260

That would make the 125 swingers 264 in the air, or about 295 total. That's enuf and will do away with the 358 hitters that are reducing the courses to driver + sand wedge.

[Jeff Fortson]

Jeff Fortson:

Most everything you said seems to be fairly in line with what I hear and read out of the USGA Tech Center, except for one thing.

You said balls like today's ProV are exponentially longer for big hitters over say 115+ mph. Exponentially longer than what? Maybe I'm not understanding what you mean by "exponentially longer" here.

Let's say a golfer hits a ball with a 100 mph swing speed 250 yards. Let's say the swing speed is increased by 5% to 105 MPH. If the distance increase is linear with the swing speed increase the 105 should hit it about 262 yards. Lets say the swing speed increases 20% to 120 mph. if distance increase is linear to swing speed increase percentage-wise that should hit a ball 300 yards. Are you saying distance increases exponentially in relation to percentage swing speed increase and that those numbers above are not realistic?

The USGA Tech Center claims that distance increase with these ProV type balls through the swing speed spectrum is linear, not exponential.

But perhaps what you really mean is now that big hitters use the same type of low spin ball that most all golfers other than elite players used to use that the distance increase in relation to swing speed increase has changed with the high mph player.

That certainly is true. However, what that really means is with the ball elite players used to use the distance relationship to swing speed was not linear between slow mph swingers and high mph swingers. Slow swingers actually hit the ball farther in relation to their swing speeds than high swing speed players.

The reasons were obvious. Almost no high swing speed players used the same kind of low spin balls almost all the low swing speed players did.

But now they do use the same type of low spin ball, and according to the USGA Tech Center now distance increase is linear to swing speed increase.

An additionally the high spin balls most all the high swing speed players used to use simply had far less than a distance enhancing trajectory when hit by high mph players compared to the trajectory of low spin rate balls hit by slow swing speed players or high swing speed players OR EVEN high spin rate balls hit by slow swing speed players.

(the latter fact, btw, just may be the final reason for the overall solution or success of a distance reduction ball for all if the physical reason it's dialled back is because it has a higher spin rate than present balls like the low spin rate ProV type).

Basically what the USGA and the manufacturers would in effect be creating with a new distance reduction higher spin rate ball is the old trajectory only higher swing speed players could get with a higher spin rate ball.

Tom,

Thank you for clarifying my lack of scientific detail.  I was just trying to keep it simple to get my point across.  To be honest, the rumor I have been hearing up until recent was that the ball was going exponentially further for higher swing speeds.  I have recently come to understand what you have said above.  I should have been more clear.  When using the term, exponentially, I should have mentioned it in relation to historical data of swing speed to distance in the ball leading up to the ProV1 era.

In regards to your comment on pros and good players using softer, 3-piece balls in the past (i.e. balatas) and now they are using 2-piece balls like the old top flites or pinnacles they would have never used before, I used to try to see if I got more distance from those balls when I was younger I got nothing out of them.  Balatas went just as far and I generate clubhead speed in my driver of about 118mph.  It was probably faster when I was younger.  Why didn't I get that extra distance from the 2-piece ball then and now I do from the ProV1?  Hopefully, you understand the jargon I just spewed.  I think the ProV1 (and comparable balls from other manufacturers) are hotter than any USGA legal balls in the history of the game.  

Sorry if my post appeared to skew the facts in relation of swing speed to distance.  I was trying to simplify the argument to avoid the scientific discussion.  My point and opinion still stands that the ball is reacting too hot for high swing speeds, IMO (whcich you tend to agree with as well, right?).


Jeff F.

[Ted Kramer]

The following statement is a guess, a hypothesis.
I have no proof to back this up.

So my hypothesis is this:

Regarding the balls of old (Balata, Professional, etc.) . . .

As swing speed increased to a certain level there was enough backspin generated to cause the ball to balloon and drop straight out of the sky.

Years ago swinging any faster than a certain swing speed didn't provide the distance that it mathematically could have or should have.

While I am in COMPLETE favor of a rollback . . .

It seems possible to me that today's balls don't create an exponential increase in distance for the faster swings . . . but the balls of old robbed those of higher swing speed of what should have been corresponding distance advantages via additional spin. That might be one reason why you used to hear about pros only swinging at 80% during tournaments. The ball might not have rewarded the 100% effort that many pros could have exerted. I don't think many people would describe Bubba Watson's or Tiger's swing with the driver as 80%  

For instance . . .

With a Balata a ss of change from 80-90 mphs (12.5% increase) might have allowed for a corresponding 12.5% increase in distance while a ss change from 110-124 mphs (the same 12.5% increase) might have resulted in a smaller gain in distance in terms of percentage increase.

And while I'm still in favor of a roll back . . .
If the above is accurate than maybe the new ball is "more fair" in terms of distance.

-Ted

[Brent Hutto]

It seems possible to me that today's balls don't create an exponential increase in distance for the faster swings . . . but the balls of old robbed those of higher swing speed of what should have been corresponding distance advantages via additional spin.

I believe you have it correct, Ted.

First off, "exponential" is a completely incorrect word in this context. But even leaving aside that sloppy colloquiallism the whole argument about what has changed with the modern, urethane, 3- or 4-piece solid core ball can only make sense relative to the traditional performance of the balata balls used by the best players. After all, the entire discussion is about how much further the longest players hit it now than they did a couple decades ago.

There was indeed a point of diminishing returns with a wound, balata ball. As the clubhead speed increased, upshooting and sidespin increased steadily while the actual carry distance increase per mph of clubhead speed became smaller and smaller. As you point out, it was perfectly rational for the big hitters to throttle back.

It was also perfectly rational for the big hitters and their equipment suppliers to work out a way to make golf balls that don't exhibit that diminishing-returns pattern. What surprises me is how long it took, no doubt due to the rather conservative and non-technical personalities of many of the top players. I think it was when the Titanium drivers became attractive that the benefits of a lower-spinning ball became too apparent to remain untapped.

So there's no magical jumping-off point where big hitters cross a threshold and gain enormous distance for a relatively small increment of clubhead speed. They just get a very steady, predictable and mundane increase in carry distance as they continue to increase their ability to swing the driver faster. We're at the point now where the USGA is going to have to actively legislate a ball that flies less far with those high clubhead speeds rather than counting on the accidental fact that wound balata balls quit performing at the high end of the power scale.

[Ted Kramer]

Based on what I posted above . . .
I'm sure that a similar "top-out" level can be reached with the new balls. I'm just guessing that you'd have to swing so fast the it really becomes irrelevant.

-Ted

[Brent Hutto]

Ted,

I agree. Current golf balls are engineered to a fare-thee-well and I doubt they suffer from the circular reasoning that resulted in "Tour balls" being so suboptimal for so long. To the extent that people keep on learning how to swing the club faster, the ball will continue to go farther (notwithstanding a miracle occurring and the USGA places a meaningful "roll back" on the ball spec).

[Doug Siebert]

The following statement is a guess, a hypothesis.
I have no proof to back this up.

So my hypothesis is this:

Regarding the balls of old (Balata, Professional, etc.) . . .

As swing speed increased to a certain level there was enough backspin generated to cause the ball to balloon and drop straight out of the sky.

Years ago swinging any faster than a certain swing speed didn't provide the distance that it mathematically could have or should have.

While I am in COMPLETE favor of a rollback . . .

It seems possible to me that today's balls don't create an exponential increase in distance for the faster swings . . . but the balls of old robbed those of higher swing speed of what should have been corresponding distance advantages via additional spin. That might be one reason why you used to hear about pros only swinging at 80% during tournaments. The ball might not have rewarded the 100% effort that many pros could have exerted. I don't think many people would describe Bubba Watson's or Tiger's swing with the driver as 80%  

For instance . . .

With a Balata a ss of change from 80-90 mphs (12.5% increase) might have allowed for a corresponding 12.5% increase in distance while a ss change from 110-124 mphs (the same 12.5% increase) might have resulted in a smaller gain in distance in terms of percentage increase.

And while I'm still in favor of a roll back . . .
If the above is accurate than maybe the new ball is "more fair" in terms of distance.

-Ted

I was just reading through the last couple days' posts and was going to suggest exactly the same thing.  Like Jeff Fortson, I never saw any measureable increase in distance (other than getting a bit more roll) from the rock flite type balls versus the balatas I typically played.  My swing speed is almost identical to his, but I think its safe to say his swing is otherwise better than mine so it becomes a little bit harder for me to write it off as being some oddity about my swing, unless whatever it is he's got the same thing.

Likewise, I never really got any measureable benefit switching to the Professional later -- I switched for its durability = less costly to play and "good enough" feel around the greens, though I still miss that buttery soft Tour Balata control greenside to this day!

When I last took out my good old persimmon driver about five years ago and tested it side by side with my new driver, using both my remaining Professionals as well my shiny new Pro V1s, the difference in ball flight & trajectory with the Pro V1 was very apparent, even with the persimmon (perhaps even more so!)  It rises more quickly at first but flattens out as reaches its apex, versus the Professional and all previous balls I played (including the occasional no-spin rock flite type) that started out lower and climbed higher, then seemed to fall out of the sky like it'd hit a wall or something.

There's gotta be more to the Pro V1 story than just a success in making a ball that has low spin off the driver and still gets pretty good spin off the irons and around the green.  Whether its an exponential increase (getting more than 10% more carry going from 110 to 121 mph) or that the old balls got 10% from 90 to 99 but less than 10% from 110 to 121, is irrelevant, is pretty obvious to most that it has benefitted those with higher swing speeds quite a bit more than those with low to average swing speeds.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()