A REAL Contrarian view on distance & technology - Go TITLEIST!!!

[DMoriarty]

Well, maybe.    He started off earlier in the thread saying "The statistics are overwhelming.  We have seen an explosive increase in distance among the elite players with the invention and use of the the new low spin balls."  That later morphed into Tour players who switched to the V1x in 2003 got 10 more yards solely from the ball.  Some of us feel that there are other factors at play too, either in the overall distance increases in the last 10 years or in the specific 2002-2203 case.

Bryan, your suggestion that I said that the ball was the only factor is not only absurd, but also more than a little disingenuous.  I have never once denied that other factors are potentially involved in any and every distance increase.  Nor have I ever attempted to calculate the exact gain in distance that the ProV1x produced.

At most, I have said that the "other factors" fall well short of explaining away all of the explosive gains which directly correlate with the switch to certain technologically advanced balls.  

You, on the other hand, have offered nothing specific about how much other factors influenced certain gains, but instead sit back and cast shadows on the obvious-- all else being equal, the ProV1x flies further than the ProV1 at very high clubhead speeds.    

For example, the facts are indisputable that in 2003 that generally those who switched to the ProV1x experienced much larger distance gains than those who did not switch to the ProV1x.  While you continually allude to other factors (I never denied that there are likely to be other factors,)  you have yet to explain what other factors could possibly apply only to those who switched to the ProV1x.   And, of these yet to be indentified factors which only helped ProV1x users, you certainly have never explained how these account for the large magnitude of the relative distance increase.  

So let's get some clarification on where you stand, Bryan. Do you agree that, all else being equal, the ProV1x flies further than the ProV1 at very high swing speeds?  

If so, do you mind telling TEPaul so?  Because the only absolutist here on this issue has been and continues to be TEPaul, who inexplicably believes that (all else being equal) every lower spin ball (new and old) which is at the ODS limit will fly the exact same distance at every other swing speed throughout the swingspeed spectrum as well.  

[Bryan Izatt]

Well, maybe.    He started off earlier in the thread saying "The statistics are overwhelming.  We have seen an explosive increase in distance among the elite players with the invention and use of the the new low spin balls."  That later morphed into Tour players who switched to the V1x in 2003 got 10 more yards solely from the ball.  Some of us feel that there are other factors at play too, either in the overall distance increases in the last 10 years or in the specific 2002-2203 case.

Bryan, your suggestion that I said that the ball was the only factor is not only absurd, but also more than a little disingenuous.    Dave, your statement quoted above led me to believe that that is what you believed.  If you are allowing that there are  other factors in the "explosive" distance gains, then peace on that point.   I have never once denied that other factors are potentially involved in any and every distance increase.  Nor have I ever attempted to calculate the exact gain in distance that the ProV1x produced.

At most, I have said that the "other factors" fall well short of explaining away all of the explosive gains which directly correlate with the switch to certain technologically advanced balls.  

You, on the other hand, have offered nothing specific about how much other factors influenced certain gains,  Oh, I thought that back in post #98 I did exactly that, by speculating on the the contribution of the other factors to the distance gains.    but instead sit back and cast shadows on the obvious-- all else being equal, the ProV1x flies further than the ProV1 at very high clubhead speeds.    I don't recall that I have said that that is untrue.  I have questioned your proof of it though.

For example, the facts are indisputable that in 2003 that generally those who switched to the ProV1x experienced much larger distance gains than those who did not switch to the ProV1x.  While you continually allude to other factors (I never denied that there are likely to be other factors,)  you have yet to explain what other factors could possibly apply only to those who switched to the ProV1x.   And, of these yet to be indentified factors which only helped ProV1x users, you certainly have never explained how these account for the large magnitude of the relative distance increase.    I'm happy to note that you now allow that there may be other factors.  That was my point.  It's what makes your point disputable.  I have in other posts pointed out some of the other factors.  I have no data to support the relative impact of those other factors.  In that sense my other factors are disputable.  What's not diputable in your data is that those 51 players experienced anywhere from no distance gain to 20 plus yard gains (I can't quite make out the exact numbers) between the measured driving holes in those two years.  Could it be the ball?  Sure.  Could it be the ball and other factors?  Seems more likely to me.

So let's get some clarification on where you stand, Bryan. Do you agree that, all else being equal, the ProV1x flies further than the ProV1 at very high swing speeds?    Sure, for the same launch angle and same clubhead speed, the V1x may carry further.  How much?  I don't know.  Is it the same over a range of launch angles?  Probably not is my speculation.  I am not an absolutist like you, unless I have data to support it.

If so, do you mind telling TEPaul so?  Because the only absolutist here on this issue has been and continues to be TEPaul, who inexplicably believes that (all else being equal) every lower spin ball (new and old) which is at the ODS limit will fly the exact same distance at every other swing speed throughout the swingspeed spectrum as well.    I'm sure Tom can read this himself.  If your point is that each ball has a different slope to its linear relationship with swing speed, I for one think that that is possible, but I have no data (all other things being equal) to support or refute it.  Do you?

[DMoriarty]

Brian, there is ample data out there (the various tours' statistics for example) but none of this data was gathered in a perfectly controlled experiment, which seems to be what you require.   But it is often the case that when dealing with human beings we have less than perfect data sets.  That is why one tries to control as many variables as possible (for example looking at a single change over a single year and focusing on one ball.)  

That is the point of looking at the tour statistics.  We have a test group (those who switched to the ProV1x) and a control group (those who didnt.)  When one sees a relatively large change in the test group (those who switched to the ProV1x)  compared to the control group (those who did not switch to the ProV1x) then that data points strongly toward the conclusion that the ProV1x played a part in the difference.  This is especially true here because the other potential factors such as conditions, wind, courses, measuring techniques, chosen holes, other equipment apply to both the test group and the control group.  

Now it is theoretically possible that all these ProV1x players also changed something else, and that something else was unique to them, but it sure isnt very likely.   For example if all the ProV1x users also switched to a certain driver that year, then this would be possible factor.  Titleist did introduce a new driver that year and likely some of those who switched to the ProV1x used it, but many of them did not.   Plus, some of those that did not switch used the new driver (especially those titleist players who stuck with the ProV1.)  So it is diffucult to say how this could explain the difference between the ProV1x users and the rest.  

So, in short, I do not have perfect data.  But I feel like I have more than enough data to draw the simple conclusion that the ProV1x is longer at certain swing speeds.  It is simply a matter of comparing ProV1x players to similarly situated players who did not make the switch.

This is what you have failed to address:  What other factors beside the ProV1x explain the distance gain difference between the ProV1x users and the rest of the field.

I'm sure Tom can read this himself.  If your point is that each ball has a different slope to its linear relationship with swing speed, I for one think that that is possible, but I have no data (all other things being equal) to support or refute it.  Do you?

Well, neither one of us has any data to refute it, but we both have data to support it.  The tour data demonstrates that, generally, those who switched to the ProV1x from other low spin balls experienced substantially larger distance gains than those who did not.  It is unreasonable to say that the tour data does not support the above conclusion.  

[TEPaul]

"If so, do you mind telling TEPaul so?  Because the only absolutist here on this issue has been and continues to be TEPaul, who inexplicably believes that (all else being equal) every lower spin ball (new and old) which is at the ODS limit will fly the exact same distance at every other swing speed throughout the swingspeed spectrum as well."

David:

You say something like that, and you call Bryan Izatt disingenuous??

I never said anything like that. I never said all low spin golf balls fly the exact same distance at every other swing speed throughout the swingspeed spectrum.

What I said was what the USGA's answer to me was when I asked them if any conforming golf balls (including the ProVx) had some "explosive" effect at some swing speed. They said that was not the case and that distance increase was linear.

I also asked them if an old Pinnacle if hit with the same equipment used today would go as far as a ProVx or perhaps some other low spinning balls that are conforming. They said yes.

I also asked Jeff Fortson a question which was this---since he said his swing speed was app 118 mph which is very close to the ODS mph:

I asked him IF the ProV was at the ODS limitation line and he then hit a ProVx app 10 yards further than a ProV (which he said he did) wouldn't that mean the ProVx should basically be deemed nonconforming?

One more time, since you're so good at just making stuff up---Jeff Fortson said his swing speed was app 118 (very close to the 120 mph ODS mph), and not 125 or 130 or 135 or whatever the hell mph you think this ridiculous "explosive effect" of yours takes place with a ProVx.  

And again, I'd prefer to take the word of the USGA's Tech Center as reliable information on the performance of golf balls rather than some ridiculous home-made analysis and charts from you.  
 
 

[Doug Siebert]

TEPaul,

Your problem here is that you appear to be assuming that swing speed is the only thing that matters as far as how far a golf ball goes.  I know that you know better, but in your responses here you keep talking about swing speeds, and ignoring stuff like launch angles that are fixed for Iron Byron but not for us guys in the real world.  You asked Jeff Fortson whether the fact he hit the Pro V1x further than the Pro V1 meant it should be noncomforming.  But its irrelevant what Jeff or others like myself who hit the V1x further think about it, whether it is noncomforming depends entirely on the results of the USGA's testing.

Jeff and I obviously aren't swinging the same club Iron Byron does the same way that Iron Byron does, so even if we swung at the exact same speed down to the 1/100th of a mph it wouldn't matter -- it would still be possible for us to hit the V1x further than the V1, even if the V1x and V1 go exactly the same distance when tested with accordance to the USGA's procedures for ODS.  We've got a different launch angle or something that makes it go further for us.  More importantly, and to the point, it means that it may be possible for Titleist to produce a ball we hit even further than the V1x, while still staying within the ODS limitations.  They did it once with the V1x, who is to say that for once and for all there is nothing more they can do?

[Jeff Fortson]

TEPaul,

Your problem here is that you appear to be assuming that swing speed is the only thing that matters as far as how far a golf ball goes.  I know that you know better, but in your responses here you keep talking about swing speeds, and ignoring stuff like launch angles that are fixed for Iron Byron but not for us guys in the real world.  You asked Jeff Fortson whether the fact he hit the Pro V1x further than the Pro V1 meant it should be noncomforming.  But its irrelevant what Jeff or others like myself who hit the V1x further think about it, whether it is noncomforming depends entirely on the results of the USGA's testing.

Jeff and I obviously aren't swinging the same club Iron Byron does the same way that Iron Byron does, so even if we swung at the exact same speed down to the 1/100th of a mph it wouldn't matter -- it would still be possible for us to hit the V1x further than the V1, even if the V1x and V1 go exactly the same distance when tested with accordance to the USGA's procedures for ODS.  We've got a different launch angle or something that makes it go further for us.  More importantly, and to the point, it means that it may be possible for Titleist to produce a ball we hit even further than the V1x, while still staying within the ODS limitations.  They did it once with the V1x, who is to say that for once and for all there is nothing more they can do?

Doug,

Thank you.  I took myself out of this conversation days ago and just caught up with it tonight.  Your post above answers TEPaul's question (my swing speed/is the V1x non-conforming?) for me quite well.

I think this debate has become overly repetitive and is going nowhere, fast.  It's obvious Bryan and Tom see it much different than Dave, you and I.  I say we agree to disagree and hope the USGA pulls the trigger and rights the ship re: distance.  


Jeff F.

[Bryan Izatt]

I think this debate has become overly repetitive and is going nowhere, fast.  It's obvious Bryan and Tom see it much different than Dave, you and I.  I say we agree to disagree and hope the USGA pulls the trigger and rights the ship re: distance.  


Jeff F.

For the record, I don't think I questioned that you got more out of the V1x than the V1. Or that the USGA should regulate the ball.  In those contexts I don't think I see it differently than you.

My debate with Dave was the irrefutable conclusions he drew from flawed data.  I am quite prepared to accept that, if the USGA ever divulges their data, that it will "prove" that some balls are longer than others at any given swing speed, with or without the same launch angle.  And that they will all be conforming under the current tests.  I'll continue to question that the distance gains from high speed swings and the modern ball are "explosive", and, that the ball is the primary or only cause of distance gains, until there is some reputable data to demonstrate it.  I didn't think you were debating those points.  But, as you say, enough already.

Looks like the debate has moved on to the evil modern ball is now responsible for improved putting in another thread.  

[TEPaul]

Doug and Jeff:

I am not only looking at swing speed. The only reason at all I mention it that way is because it seems that David Moriarty insists on limiting this analysis of distance increase to the ProVx or the ProVx vs the ProV.

Bryan Izatt and I have reminded David Moriarty over and over again that there are a whole lot more factors that go into distance production than just the golf ball. He keeps saying he's aware of that and agrees with it but it has never looked like he's bothered to actually consider what the effects are of those other factors or to roll that information into the data he's using to make this claim that the ProVx generates some "explosive effect" at some swing speed, or that in an over-all sense that the ProVx is not linear distance-wise.

As you said or implied there are a whole array of clubs, launch angles, CORs, individual player swing dynamics etc, etc. These are some of what Bryan Izatt and I mean by "other factors" and the USGA Tech Center is well aware of that.

All this falls into what may loosely be called "optimization" which essentially is club and ball fitting to individual player swing dynamics through computer analysis. The point here is that some club and ball combinations work well for some types of players and their swing dynamics and other combinations don't work well.

And I think we recognize as the Tech Center does that linear distance production can rise and fall through a linear swing speed increase and through the swing speed spectrum for any particular player and combination of ball, club and player swing dynamic. But that at the end of the analysis there has not been any "explosive effect" if one looks at a linear swing speed increase and distance increase against an over-all spectrum.

In other words for all players some combinations don't work at all well but others do at particular swing speeds, ball and club combinations and swing dynamics. All this basically seems to boil down to one thing----basically to optimal trajectory for distance production of any player.

Again, I doubt either Bryan Izatt or I would limit this discussion to the ProVx or only swing speed if it wasn't for the fact that David Moriarty seems to want to analyze it that way.

If he says he agrees there are a number of other factors in distance production then let him begin to consider what those other factors are and discuss their particular effects on the distance production of any particular player and any particular "conforming" golf ball.

Again, the Tech Center's position is that in an OVER-ALL sense distance production of today's conforming balls is linear, even if various combinations rise and fall along the spectrum.

If you want me to work out a mathematic model of what I mean by that I'll do it.

[DMoriarty]

I never said anything like that. I never said all low spin golf balls fly the exact same distance at every other swing speed throughout the swingspeed spectrum.

Tom, you have repeatedly said that-- all else being equal-- two low spin balls which fly the same distance at the testing swing speed will also fly the same distance at all swing speeds above the testing swing speed.  In fact, you've gone further, stating that not only would the new low spin balls fly the same distance, but also that the old Pinnacle-type balls also fly this same distance at swing speeds above the testing limit.  

Nonetheless, I am glad to see that you might finally understand that this is an untenable position, and are apparently backing away from it.  If so, while I have to wonder why you keep calling my analysis "ridiculous," I nonetheless welcome the change of heart.  Don't worry, we all make mistakes.  

As for the Jeff Forston question, if you review my posts I think you'll find I did my best to answer it.   Plus, others answered it as well.   If those answers don't satisfy you then keep in mind that I know Jeff Forston and . . . just between you and me . . . he is a big fat liar.  

Bryan Izatt and I have reminded David Moriarty over and over again that there are a whole lot more factors that go into distance production than just the golf ball.

In fact, Tom I am well aware that other factors are at work here and am taking them into consideration.  That is exactly why I am looking at only the 2002 to 2003 switch to the ProV1x and comparing those who switched to those who didn't.  One does not need to be a USGA technician to understand that the way to begin solving a multivariable problem is to isolate the single variable (distance increase due to the switch to the ProV1x) and to do one's best to control the rest of the variables (identify a large control group-- those who did not switch,) then compare the test and the control.  

Neither you or Bryan Izatt has begun to explain or offer any other viable explanation (besides the ball) for the explosive gains generally experienced by those who switched, relative to those who did not switch.  
_______________________

Bryan Izatt,

Bryan,  Just what "irrefutable conclusions" have I drawn, and from what "flawed data?"    

The only conclusions I have drawn are:
1.   All else being equal, different balls with different characteristics will fly different distances at identically high swing speeds.   This is true even when the balls happen to fly the same distance at the swing speed limit; and
2.  Based on comparing those tour players who switched to the ProV1x with those who did not switch (over a controlled time period and somewhat controlled conditions,) I've concluded that the ProV1x generally flies further at high swing speeds.  

You've repeatedly tried to portray me as saying more than this for reasons unknown to me.  

Ironically, you have apparently concluded the same thing as me, and likely based on the same data.  

And still, you avoid answering my question:  What other factors besides the different distance characteristics of the ProV1x explain the distance gain difference between the ProV1x users and the rest of the field from the 2002 to 2003 PGA Tour season?

[TEPaul]

"Tom, you have repeatedly said that-- all else being equal-- two low spin balls which fly the same distance at the testing swing speed will also fly the same distance at all swing speeds above the testing swing speed.  In fact, you've gone further, stating that not only would the new low spin balls fly the same distance, but also that the old Pinnacle-type balls also fly this same distance at swing speeds above the testing limit."

Oh really? Why don't you find that? Maybe that's what you think I said but apparently you don't read very well. What I've said on this thread are the answers to the questions I asked the USGA Tech Center on your claim, as well as the analogy of the old Pinnacle ball.

[DMoriarty]

"Tom, you have repeatedly said that-- all else being equal-- two low spin balls which fly the same distance at the testing swing speed will also fly the same distance at all swing speeds above the testing swing speed.  In fact, you've gone further, stating that not only would the new low spin balls fly the same distance, but also that the old Pinnacle-type balls also fly this same distance at swing speeds above the testing limit."

Oh really? Why don't you find that? Maybe that's what you think I said but apparently you don't read very well.  

We both know what you said, Tom.   I have no interest in arguing with you and potentially delaying you as you beat a hasty retreat from your previous position.  But if you are truly confused about what you have said in the past, a good place to start would be at my thread where I suggested that the old Pinnacle couldnt possibly fly the exact same distance as the new low spin balls at every high swing speed, and you essentially called my position absurd.    I believe the thread was called something like "Pinnacles =  Strata? ProV1? ProV1?"  

[Mike_Cirba]

Man...what the hell did I start here?!?

Perhaps my initial thrust in this thread was right after all...perhaps we should just discard all rules and regs around equipment and balls so we can quit arguing about them!  

[TEPaul]

"Nonetheless, I am glad to see that you might finally understand that this is an untenable position, and are apparently backing away from it.  If so, while I have to wonder why you keep calling my analysis "ridiculous," I nonetheless welcome the change of heart.  Don't worry, we all make mistakes."

You know David Moriarty, that you would say something like that only proves what a defensive little double-talker you can really be.

I didn't back away from anything. Days ago you said the ProVx was "explosive" at some swing speed. I called the USGA up and asked them if that was the case and they definitely said no---twice.

Then you started wheelding out of that statement by questioning what anyone's definition of "explosive" meant.

It's OK to admit you're wrong but obviously that's impossible for you.

Bryan and I have told you for days there are other factors involved in distance production and you said you agreed but you never seem to effectively use or identify them in your analyses, charts, assumptions and conclusions that seem to be only about the ProVx golf ball. Why is that?

You seem fixated on proving a ProVx is longer than a ProV, or maybe anything else on the conforming ball list. For whom? It's probably longer for some and not others. When asked why those Tour player stats between 2002 and 2003 are inconsistent in distance increase with a number of players to say the least you seem to make light of what the "other factors" may be that causes that.

Once again, your sole claim on this thread seems to be that the ProVx has some "explosive" effect at some higher swing speed. And again, the USGA Tech Center just does not agree with you on that. You can continue to argue irrelevent circles around this subject for whatever your reasons but that remains the facts as they see it.

[TEPaul]

"Man...what the hell did I start here?!?"

MikeC:

Nothing really. Every single thread David Moriarty has ever participated ends up this way.

[TEPaul]

"We both know what you said, Tom.  I have no interest in arguing with you and potentially delaying you as you beat a hasty retreat from your previous position.  But if you are truly confused about what you have said in the past, a good place to start would be at my thread where I suggested that the old Pinnacle couldnt possibly fly the exact same distance as the new low spin balls at every high swing speed, and you essentially called my position absurd.    I believe the thread was called something like "Pinnacles =  Strata? ProV1? ProV1?""

David:

Please do us all a favor and try not to be such a trite jerk.

I never said the old Pinnacle flew the EXACT same distance as ALL the new low spin balls. If you think I said that---then find it.

What I said was the answers to the questions I asked the USGA Tech Center because of your claim on here.

"Is the ProVx or any of these new low spin new age balls "explosive" in distance at some swing speed?"

Their answer was NO!

I asked if these balls were linear distance-wise. Their answer was yes. For instance if they go 20 yards farther from 100 to 110 they do not go 30 or 40 yards farther between 110 and 120.

Obviously you must think so or whatever could you mean by saying they are "explosive" at some swing speed?

I asked them if you hit a low spin old Pinnacle and the new low spin balls like a ProVx with the same equipment players use today if they would go about the same distance?

Their answer was yes.

That's all I've said on here. It wouldn't surprise me if at this point you'll now begin to claim we agree.

[TEPaul]

"Neither you or Bryan Izatt has begun to explain or offer any other viable explanation (besides the ball) for the explosive gains generally experienced by those who switched, relative to those who did not switch."

We certainly did. We mentioned potentially different club specs and characteristics, perhaps different conditions of play (ground, weather etc), perhaps some players have changed the way they want to drive the ball as Mickelson did, and perhaps some of those players had just not been very well "optimized" as the Tech Center mentioned that not all of even the Tour pros have been or have chosen to be.

You just sloughed all that off, and now you ask us what the "other factors may be and why we never produced any explanations for why we think this is not just the ProVx ball or whatever it is your ridiculous claim is on here.

You're amazing. You're obviously coming around to agreeing with what we've told you all along and now you're trying to tell us we never said what we did.

Call the God-damned USGA Tech Center up for yourself David Moriarty and ask them yourself and quit weasling out of it by saying you hope they have better things to do than answer your question or whatever other horseshit you've said like that when I've asked you to call them yourself.

Just call them up yourself. If you don't how can I conclude anything other than you're just being trite or evasive and all you really want to do is argue in circles with people on here?

To tell me I'm backing away from what I said or it seems like I'm beginning to agree with your point is the most preposterous thing I've heard yet.

 

[Bryan Izatt]

Man...what the hell did I start here?!?

Perhaps my initial thrust in this thread was right after all...perhaps we should just discard all rules and regs around equipment and balls so we can quit arguing about them!  

Aha!  It's now clear, it's not ball; you're the source of the ills of the technological game.  

[DMoriarty]

Tom, I've asked you politely before to please refrain from the juvenile name calling and now I am asking you again.  It has no place in a reasonable discussion.  Thanks in advance.  

I've repeatedly explained what I mean (and have meant from the beginning) regarding the explosiveness of the ProV1x.   It has nothing to do with increases in that particular ball from one swing speed to another, but rather the ProV1x is explosive compared to other balls at extremely high swing speeds.  For example, all else being equal, the ProV1x and the ProV1 are likely produce the same distance results at some given swing speed but for swing speeds substantially above that swing speed, the ProV1x flies significantly-- I would say explosively farther.  All else being equal, of course.  

For example, on page three of this thread I said . . .
". . . I have suggested that the golf manufacturers have developed conforming golf balls which have disproportionately benefited elite players."

You noted your disagreement.

Above you ask me to find where you said  that all else being equal-- two low spin balls which fly the same distance at the testing swing speed will also fly the same distance at all swing speeds above the testing swing speed.

In the same post as above I said: " . . . "Yet this is just a logical extension of the principle that two balls may share a common distance characteristic at a certain speed (like the ODS limit) but not necessarily have the same distance characteristics across the spectrum of swing speeds."

Your response:  "That's true but apparently only with high spin rate golf balls, and not low spin rate golf balls."

This is but one example of many where you have denied the simple proposition that two low spin balls may share a common distance characteristic at a certain speed (like the ODS limit) but not necessarily have the same distance characteristics across the spectrum of swing speeds."Nonetheless, I am glad you are finally starting to change your mind.  

___________________

As for other factors explaining the explosive distance increase among those who switched to the ProV1x, which of these other factors were unique only to the test group-- those that switched to the ProV1x?  Was the weather unique to only those playing the ProV1x?  the ground?  other playing conditions? Optimization?  Did a miraculous tail wind start up the thousands of times that ProV1x users were hitting, then die whenever the ProV1 users were hitting?   As I said before, must have been some fickle wind!

No offense Tom, but I think you arent quite understanding the concept of comparing a control group to a test group.

[TEPaul]

David Moriarty:

Just go ahead and continue your pathetic posturing,  rationalizing, unsupportable denying, contending etc to support what we all know you originally tried to conclude which is wrong. You can float all the f...ing control group horseshit you want on here but if you believe the ProVx is "Explosive" at some swing speed then I challenge you to call the USGA yourself and ask them about that, as I did.

Until you do that I'm going to tell you right now I have no respect for you or any of what you say on here, and I don't give a shit how often you cry like a baby on here that you think I'm resorting to personal attachs.

There is nothing personal about what I say on here to you---I just think the things you say on here are unsupportable, incorrect, and you're more than a little annoying and pompous about the way you constantly try to just weasel out of the obvious.

Call the USGA Tech Center yourself David Moriarty and until you do that I will not even begin to change my opinion on the things you keep saying on here.

[DMoriarty]

TEPaul, You challenged me to find where you said that the two low spin balls which fly the same distance at the testing swing speed will also fly the same distance at all swing speeds above the testing swing speed.  Turns out you said as much in this very thread.    Your response when I point this out?   More profanity and insults.    Again Tom, I'd appreciate it if you would treat me with the respect that all the posters here deserve.  Plus your insults and profanity are not adding anything to the conversation.   If you disagree with my premise, I'd be glad to hear why, but these outbursts get us nowhere.

You seem intent on me contacting the USGA.   Frankly, I have no idea why I would.   My contentions remain twofold: 1.  All else being equal, different balls with different characteristics will fly different distances at identically high swing speeds.  This is true even when the balls happen to fly the same distance at the swing speed limit; and
2.  Based on comparing those tour players who switched to the ProV1x with those who did not switch (over a controlled time period and somewhat controlled conditions,) I've concluded that the ProV1x generally flies further at high swing speeds.  

As far as I am concerned neither of these contentions are seriously in doubt.  Even Bryan Izatt agrees with them.   Only you have denied them, and apparently you arent even willing to continue to deny them.   So, why would I call the USGA, to have them tell us something we already know?  I respect the organization too much to waste their time with something like that.  

As the the "explosiveness" issue, it is obvious that you not only misunderstood the USGA, but you misunderstood me as well.  Immediately after you first talked to the USGA I told you that I accepted their explanation of linearity, but that it made no difference to my observation that the new equipment has led to explosive distance gains among the elite players, especially when compared to those with slower swing speeds.   Go back and see.  It is clear as day right in the archives.   So please stop trying to twist my view into something that it isnt. Thanks.

All the Best,

David.  

[DMoriarty]

One more thing Tom . . .

What if I did call the USGA and they confirmed that:
1.  All else being equal, different balls with different characteristics will fly different distances at identically high swing speeds.  This is true even when the balls happen to fly the same distance at the swing speed limit; and
2.  All else being equal, the ProV1x flies substantially further than the ProV1 at very high swing speeds.

What exactly would this accomplish?  Would you take me at my word (as I did you regarding linearity) and change your view based on this information?   Or would you claim that this is what you have been saying all along?  

Just for clarification and to avoid future confusion should I change my mind and call; what is your new take on these two conclusions?  Do you agree or disagree, and why?  

Thanks in advance for your response.  

David.

[TEPaul]

"One more thing Tom . . .

What if I did call the USGA and they confirmed that:
1.  All else being equal, different balls with different characteristics will fly different distances at identically high swing speeds.  This is true even when the balls happen to fly the same distance at the swing speed limit; and
2.  All else being equal, the ProV1x flies substantially further than the ProV1 at very high swing speeds.

What exactly would this accomplish?  Would you take me at my word (as I did you regarding linearity) and change your view based on this information?  Or would you claim that this is what you have been saying all along?  

Just for clarification and to avoid future confusion should I change my mind and call; what is your new take on these two conclusions?  Do you agree or disagree, and why?  

Thanks in advance for your response.  

David:

Instead of just constantly and continuously mincing words, talking in circles, posturing, evading and confusing people on here why the hell don't you just call the Tech Center and ask them whatever the hell questions you want to ask them?

I told you about two dozen times what I asked them and what they said.

Clearly golf balls (any of them) will react in different ways and go obviously different distances et al (trajectory and such you know) depending on not just some swing speed or a progression of swing speeds but what the characteristics are of the club they are getting hit with, the dynamics of the particular player's swing who's hitting them etc. These are just some of the "other factors" we've been telling you about.

Again, I'll tell you exactly what I asked them:

1. Is there some "explosive" effect with conforming golf balls (including the ProVx) at any particular swing speed?

I think by this time you know what they told me. (hint--it was no, that conforming balls are basically distance linear).

2. If a player hit an older low spin Pinnacle with the same equipment they use today would it go about as far as the new age low spin golf ball (including a ProVx).

I think by now you know what they told me. (hint--the answer was yes)

So knock yourself out and just ask away. I'll give you a hint, though---if you even attempt to ask the Tech Center (other than Dick Rugge) what their policy is going to be with I&B or distance they very likely will not speak with you at all. That's the job of Rugge or the publicity dept of the USGA, and not any of the people who work in the test center. Obviously they aren't going to tell you or me something that's not public or particularly something they may not have entirely explained to every manufacturer.

But ask them about the physics, aerodynamics and the general performance characteristics of golf balls or any particular club and ball circumstances, as well as various player swing dynamics.

They should speak with you and I certainly hope they do speak to you to your satisfaction but if they don't it certainly wouldn't surprise me.

I'm not trying to appear right all the time on this issue and I'm just as interested in understanding all this as apparently you are. That's why I called the Tech Center--I figure they certainly know this subject better than someone like you and the rest of the people on here who seem to think they have this all figured out and have all the answers.

I'd suggest you print out verbatim and ask them the same thing verbatim precisely what I asked them, and if they tell you something entirely different than they told me, I'd be shocked.

As for the rest of this, I'm just sick and tired of reading your posts where you tell some of us we're being disingenuous, we're attacking your personally, we don't understand a "control group", your charts, what the meaning of linear is or explosive or whatever the f....else.

Just call them up and I hope their responses satisfy your curiosities about the ProVx or the ProVX vs the ProV at some swing speed or some explosive factor of the ProVx at some swing speed or how golfers other than elite high mph players are getting treated unfairly or whatever else your complaint is today.

I'm just tired of trying to discuss almost anything with you. It's almost inevitably a terrible waste of time, unfortunately.

Good luck, I hope you learn something.

[TEPaul]

"You seem intent on me contacting the USGA.  Frankly, I have no idea why I would.  My contentions remain twofold:"

David:

I hadn't read that before I made the post above. You've just got to be kidding me. You have no idea why you would call the USGA and ask them these questions?

I just can't believe anyone would say something like that who is anything other than just a total obdurate pain in the ass.

Let me give you a hint why you both would and should call them and ask them these questions---

THEY KNOW THIS STUFF a whole lot better than YOU DO, David Moriarty.

But if you don't want to do that or you really don't see any reason why you should ask them then I guess all you really want to do is hang out on GOLFCLUBATLAS.com and on these types of I&B threads and argue with people on here endlessly perhaps in hopes you may make or score some point someday. And I guess you're probably just scared of what the Tech Center will tell you that may look like you've been proven wrong---OH MY God what a disaster that would be!

I'm sick of this total waste of time of trying to discuss almost anything with you.

Now just call them up will you for Christ Sakes and stop all this horseshit on here?

[Bryan Izatt]

Bryan Izatt,

Bryan,  Just what "irrefutable conclusions" have I drawn, and from what "flawed data?"   As my kids would say - whatever.  Check back on previous posts.  I think we've covered this already.  

The only conclusions I have drawn are:
1.   All else being equal, different balls with different characteristics will fly different distances at identically high swing speeds.   This is true even when the balls happen to fly the same distance at the swing speed limit;  If by different characteristics you mean spin rate and dimple pattern, then I agree that this is likely true.  I haven't "concluded" it, because I have no reliable data to prove the conclusion.   and
2.  Based on comparing those tour players who switched to the ProV1x with those who did not switch (over a controlled time period and somewhat controlled conditions,) I've concluded that the ProV1x generally flies further at high swing speeds.  Your conclusion is incomplete - further than what?  A Pro V1?  All other balls colectively or individually?  If you mean than the Pro V1, again, I'd speculate that that is true.  I don't believe it is "proven" by the data you're using though.    

You've repeatedly tried to portray me as saying more than this for reasons unknown to me.    Because I seem to remember other claims and conclusions in your previous posts in this thread.  What happened to the claim that there is an "explosive" (meaning 10 yards?) distance gain with the Pro V1x at high swing speed.  Your conclusion above seems more muted than the "explosive" claim.  Has your position softened on this point?

Ironically, you have apparently concluded the same thing as me, and likely based on the same data.    Well, I'm an ironic, disingenuous kinda guy.  I haven't concluded anything.  I think certain things may be true, but it's based on anecdotal information, so I resist "concluding" anything.  I think (as I'm sure you've figured out) that your data is flawed statistically and scientifically speaking and therefore it's just another piece of anecdotal information for me.

And still, you avoid answering my question:  What other factors besides the different distance characteristics of the ProV1x explain the distance gain difference between the ProV1x users and the rest of the field from the 2002 to 2003 PGA Tour season?    I think I covered that in post #98. The factors would be the same in the year-to-year comparison and with or without a "control" group.  I did notice that your intial claim was based on comparing a group of 51 players between the two years.  Subsequently you added the concept of a control group, although you have never identified the control group.  The concept of a control group is that they are statiscally identical to the test group across the variables.  Who is the control group?  What is your source of information on ball usage in each year between the two groups.  What swing speed range did you use to include or exclude players from the sample?  Did both groups athletically condition themselves the same way, play the same courses in the same weather and course conditions with the same equipment and the same optimized launch parameters.  Was the ball the only variable?  I don't think it is from a scientific experiment point of view.  If you think all these other variables are a wash, so be it.  If you do, your conclusion should be that the the Pro V1x is longer (by some amount) than the average of all other balls used by the control group.  That would suggest that some other ball model could be longer than the Prov V1x and just got lost in the averaging.

God, I wish it would warm up and the season would start and I could do something useful with my spare time

[TEPaul]

Bryan:

Carry on Brother. I admire your patience and stamina but I guarantee you it's a total waste of time.