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

[JESII]

Why would the PGA Tour be so quick to follow the USGA rules? What do they have to gain or lose if that decision ever comes up?

[DMoriarty]

TomPaul,  I've read your post #47 above.  I'm assuming everything before "But seriously" is merely a product of your quirky sense of humor and should therefore be disregarded.    

But seriously, you have repeatedly said that the ProV created an "exssssPLOSIVE" effect on distance of the elite player and that is just not the case.The elite player simply switched by choice to a ball that had the distance characteristics of the long time legal hard ball and the soft feel of the old high spin ball. You can say that old hard ball wasn't sophisticated enough for the good player until the cows come home but that is not relevent to this discussion of distance increase in an historical sense.

I beg to differ. 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.  The distance characteristics of the old ball were entirely irrelevant to the elite player because the ball was not state of the art.  Like a fast car with no steering wheel, these balls were just not good enough for the elite players to use.

Further, pardon me for saying so but I think that you  have a flawed understanding of the similarites in the distance characteristics of the old Pinnacle-type ball compared to the new ProV1-type ball.  In another thread you wrote that if two balls were both at the USGA ODS limit, then neither ball was any longer than the other.  While this is obviously true at the single testing conditions (ex. 109 mph swing, persimmon driver, and steel shaft for the old standard,) you mistakenly conclude that this will also be true at under other (non-test) conditions.  

For example, when I questioned whether the old Pinnacle produced different distance results than the ProV1x at various swing speeds, you dismissed this question based on the likely fact that both balls were conforming and close to the ODS limit . . .

Let's assume that old Pinnacle, the old distance ball, was right up at the ODS limitation distance-wise which they say it was. If that was so, and the ODS has not increased allowable distance at the ODS limitation why are you asking if the ProV is longer than the old Pinnacle or at what swing speed?

The ODS mph factor is nothing more than a "pass/fail" line and if the old Pinnacle was at the ODS limitation why do you think a ProV, for instance, can be longer than the Pinnacle without being deemed "non-conforming" by the USGA?

The flaw in your logic is that you assume that just because these balls fly the same distance at one swing speed and condition, that  they will necessarily fly the same distance at every other swing speed and condition.   This is mistaken.  Just because two balls both fly the same distance off a persimmon club swung at 109 mph (the old test), this does NOT mean that they will necessarily fly identical distances when both are hit with modern equipment at 140 mph, or at 75 mph for that matter.

One can see this in the real world by looking at the the ProV1 and the ProV1x.  Both conform, presumably at or near the ODS limit. Yet at high swing speeds the ProV1x is significantly longer.   And  the switch from the ProV to the ProV1x produced explosive distance gains among many of the top players.   In fact around thirty (30) tour players gained 9 yards or more in 2003, the year they switched from the ProV1 to the ProV1x.  

[Doug Siebert]

I noticed as large a gain in driving distance going from the V1 to the V1x as I did going from the Professional to the V1.  I'm not like Mickelson claiming I get 20 yards ever time I regrip my driver, but it was enough for me to notice (and the V1 was the first technology change I'd ever made where ANY distance increase on square hits was enough for me to notice) and I hit to a few places I'd never been before in the weeks after I bought my first dozen V1x.

So the response is probably that it makes sense, because the V1x spins less and therefore carries further.  Well, what's to stop Titleist from figuring out how to make a V1z that spins even less than the V1x?  Surely not a problem with lack of control, because if the V1x spins less off the driver it isn't spinning less to a noticeable or certainly not problematic degree for approach shots or little shots around the green!

If you gave me one of each, both unmarked, if I gave them sufficient whacks with a driver I could tell them apart by how far they went, but I don't think I could tell them apart by hitting wedges and see how quickly they stop.  There's just not enough difference for me to tell, and while tour pros surely could tell them apart by spin, many of them obviously decided that whatever spin they lost was worth the trade for the extra distance.

[DMoriarty]

Doug,  I think your experience is typical, at least for those with high swing speeds.

Speaking of Phil, he is an interesting one because he switched from the ProV1 to the ProV1x, then to a Calloway in three consecutive years.   Phil didnt quite gain 20 yards in 2003 when he switched to the ProV1x, but he was close, gaining 17 yards.  The next year when he switched to Callaway he lost over ten yards and has since gained about 1/2 that back.  

Some of those who didnt go with the ProV1x in 2003 really suffered. Charles Howell was 4th in driving in 2002 with a 293 average.  The next year he stayed with Callaway and his average gained around a yard, but he still lost almost 10 yards relative to the new 4th place.  

It is beyond me how anyone can look at the ProV1x statistics and still say that all these balls go the same distance when hit at extremely high clubhead speeds.

[TEPaul]

David:

I'm bringing your post from the Pinnacke, Strata, Callaway, ProV, ProVx thread over here because it gives some background on this discussion with your Post #52 above:



"TomP, I am glad you questioned me in your post above,  because your post really helps us get at our major differences regarding our respective understandings of the ODS limit . . .

I do understand the ODS Limitation, but I also have some understanding of its limitations. The major limitation of the ODS tests, old and new, is that they each only test at one clubhead speed.    Just because two balls both fly the same distance off a persimmon club swung at 109 mph (the old test), this does NOT mean that they will necessarily fly identical distances when both are hit with modern equipment at 140 mph, or at 75 mph for that matter.  I've been telling you this for a very long time, and others have agreed . . . I even tried to demonstrate this graphically, but you did not like my chart.    So far I am afraid that you have apparently not come to grips with this notion, and it remains the major sticking point of our conversations.

Perhaps if you think about it within the context of the following example using two real world conforming balls--  the ProV1 and the ProV1x.  

Both the ProV1 and the ProV1x comply (and complied) with the USGA test for distance, presumably at or very close to the distance limit.  So by your understanding as expressed above, neither the ProV1 nor the ProV1x is any longer than the other.  Because they traveled the same distances under test conditions, they ought to travel identical distances to the other whenever they are hit under similar circumstances (speed, club, condition, etc.) [/i ] Yet at very high swing speeds and with the right equipment, the ProV1x flies further than the ProV does under identical conditions.  Much further.

If you don't believe me then take a look at the top distance gainers on Tour the year the ProV1x was introduced (2003.)  Almost every one of the big gainers switched to the ProV1x that year, most from the ProV.  And the gains are extraordinary.  For example, at least thirty (30) tour players gained 9 yards or more after switching to the ProVx.  Same players, new ball, big gains.  

So to answer the question you asked at the end of your post . . .  If the ProV1x is longer than the ProV1 at high swing speeds, then it is perfectly reasonable to ask whether the ProV1x is longer or shorter than the Pinnacle, and at what speeds."

[TEPaul]

"I do understand the ODS Limitation, but I also have some understanding of its limitations. The major limitation of the ODS tests, old and new, is that they each only test at one clubhead speed.    Just because two balls both fly the same distance off a persimmon club swung at 109 mph (the old test), this does NOT mean that they will necessarily fly identical distances when both are hit with modern equipment at 140 mph, or at 75 mph for that matter.  I've been telling you this for a very long time, and others have agreed...."

David:

You’ve been telling me this for a very long time??

David, I don’t know how old you are---how old are you anyway?---or how long you’ve been aware of the particulars and the ramifications of the USGA’s ODS test but I’ve been more than aware of what you said above for probably close to 20 years now.

I believe I’ve also been aware of what the potential limitations are in distance information through the swing speed spectrum of the ODS test, as well as perhaps the limitations in distance information of the ODS test regarding various different types of legal golf balls going back over 40 years until today.

I don’t know how long you’ve been following and participating in these distance threads on here but do you remember when I first mentioned the case of Davis Love at the Walker Cup at Pine Valley? I can’t remember if that was in 1985 or 1988 but it was close to 20 years ago now. I think if you look in the archives on this website you’ll find I mentioned that maybe 5-6 years ago and what it probably meant to the USGA (and perhaps the world) when they first saw it (his performance distance-wise in the Walker Cup at Pine Valley).

I think you can imagine where I’m going here. It may have been up to 15 years ago I first asked Frank Thomas why he picked 109mph as the ODS “pass/fail” line and also why he didn’t test golf balls at a whole series of swing speeds for the ODS ball conformance test.

Perhaps you didn’t notice or didn’t read what I said he said about that. What I’m telling you on here is not my own personal assumptions about the technologic and physics reasons of distance production of various swing speeds with various golf balls, it’s the history of the way the USGA Tech Center looked at it back then and up until today.

Certainly we have talked plenty regarding distance of such things as the meaning of various spin rates of golf balls and I’ve told you what the USGA Tech Center told me regarding how they looked at spin rate in the past and how they may be looking at it now as it affects distance production.

Again, Vernon’s report mentions three areas of study and information gathering regarding distance and two of them are entitled 1. Spin Generation, and 2. The ball.

I called the USGA Tech Center not long ago (probably as a result of these discussions) and asked if they felt there was some explosive distance increase regarding the golf ball alone in the last 10-15 years. They mentioned there was simply because elite players switched to a distance efficient ball whose distance characteristics had been legal for decades. It turns out that may’ve almost completely resulted from spin rate characteristics, all of which had been legal forever and still are. And that’s just the golf ball. There are other contributing factors to distance production within the last decade---eg COR increase, lighter weigh materials and computer optimization of clubs and balls and swing characteristics.

You may also recall me mentioning on here maybe 2-3 years ago John Ott and I spent a day at the USGA Tech Center (I don’t believe it’s open to the public any longer but I could be wrong. I certainly didn’t see anyone else in there). I mentioned on here my question about whether spin rate had ever been regulated and what they said and why. You may recall what we were told when I asked what they felt about distance production at high swing speeds if spin rate was regulated (ie, a limitation on the MINIMUM amount of spin rate).

You may also recall the USGA Tech Center said recently they feel distance production is basically linear throughout the swing speed spectrum with even ODS conforming maximum distance golf balls. I suppose I could always call them back and ask them what they mean by “linear” if you have some problem with that description. Or you could simply call them yourself.

These are the facts as I know them and knew them back then and what I’ve been told by those who monitor and regulate these things.

You most certainly did not inform me of the question of what happens distance-wise (with various types of ODS legal balls) through the swing speed spectrum. That’s a question I wondered about almost 20 years ago and asked about----again particularly after the Love incident at the Walker Cup at Pine Valley.

Obviously the USGA wondered about that too with Love because they’d never seen distance like that. They actually tried to get him to come to the USGA and be tested. Obviously they’d never seen a swing speed like that in competition. I remember they wondered if there was some exponential factor above a certain swing speed.  He was using 90 compression Titleist balatas and Ping beryllium irons. What I wondered watching him is what the hell his distance would be if he teed up something like a Pinnacle.

This is the history and the facts as I know them. Some of you are asking on here why they didn’t figure all this out 10 years or so ago. I guess you could call them and ask them that question yourself. But the point I feel is more important is---have they completely figured it out now and are they going to do something about it with new ball and club rules and regs?

Again, the areas they have publicly stated they are looking at in that vein are;

1.   MOI
2.   Spin generation
3.   The ball

Would new rules and regs regarding spin generation or spin rate of the golf ball effectively roll back distance? They have said in their opinion it would (among other possible factors) primarily as it affects the golf ball's trajectory for big hitters.

[TEPaul]

David:

I don't know how long you've been aware of the USGA's ODS and what it is and isn't.

I remember when I began to look into it around 20 years ago some people (actually a lot of people) thought the USGA's ODS actually deemed non-conforming any golf ball that went farther than the USGA's stated distance limitation of app 298 yards.

Most people weren't even aware of the 109mph factor or what it meant. Again, they simply thought if any golf ball went farther than 298 yds in a controlled test under any circumstances (such as various swing speeds) it would be non-conforming.

Matter of fact, the entire subject of "athleticism" (strength and really high swing speeds) was pretty much outside their intended purview in their stated I&B principles. They were  looking at the technology of clubs and balls only in a very controlled and perhaps limited test protocol (it seems limited now but it didn't back then). As you can see in the 2002 R&A/USGA Joint Statement of Principles "athletisim" is no longer outside their I&B purview as it relates to distance production. Essentially nothing is any longer, not even course conditions.

It's beginning to occur to me that some of those who wonder why they didn't stop all this 10 or so years ago are young guys who don't remember the way it was back then.

Back then or even as late as around 1985 it was just a matter of most all good players played high spinning soft balls and the rest played low spinning hard balls. I don't remember that anyone thought anything about that--at least not in a distance increase sense. That was just the way it was.

No one even saw the COR increase coming and what that was going to mean distance-wise. Certainly back around the 1980s no one saw computer "optimization" of clubs and balls and swing patterns coming. I even happen to know a guy whose company (Wilson) made the USGA Tech Center aware of the beginning of COR increase in club faces. Ironically there was wording in the I&B rules and regs called "spring-like effect" but no one actually had seen a COR increase in clubfaces. I don't even know that anyone even thought about something that seemingly odd.

The same with the combination golf ball. Maye some manufacturers were R&Ding it but they sure we're talking about the distance ramifications of low spin rate balls.

So these kinds of things just started coming down the ball and equipment pipeline and the USGA Tech Center (basically the only I&B tech center) was not ready for it with tests or rules and regs to catch it.

It seems like you young guys are looking back at a time you weren't part of and you're criticizing them now in 20/20 hindsight only. I'm pretty sure if any of you had played back then you wouldn't have been aware of what was about to happpen and why either.

So it's probably fruitless to criticize them like you knew something they didn't. The real point is what do they know now and what are they going to do about it with new I&B rules and regs?

The reason I'm writing posts like this, David, is it really struck me how you may actually think you are the first to inform some of us about ODS not testing the distance ramifications of a whole spectrum of swing speeds. Again, some of us began wondering about that up to 20 years ago.

Things start somewhere and I can tell you how interesting that David Love incident was. Most of the USGA committee came out to watch him at PV in the Walker Cup because obviously the word had gotten out after the tour pros saw him at the Atlanta Classic (I think he was a soph or junior at UNC) and were stunned by what they saw.

I remember well the look on their faces and what they were beginning to say as they followed him around in that one singles match he played. And he didn't even hit a wood.

That really was the first window on the future of this distance thing, in my opinion, and then shortly thereafter along came John Daly at the PGA championship.

That they apparently thought to actually ask Love to come to the USGA Tech Center seems almost quaint now.

Did they think to fire Iron Bryon up to a swing speed of about 130 mph to see what would happen? I really don't know. I think I'll ask.

Did they think to maybe see how far below 298 yards at 109 mph a 90 compression balata Titleist was? I don't know that either, and I think I'll  ask that.

It may just have been that all they were concerned with was that the 90 compression Titleist balata was not over the 298 yard limitation at 109 mph, just as the low spinning hard Pinnacle wasn't, or any other golf ball with any kind of playing characteristic wasn't.

[DMoriarty]

Tom,  I appreciate your long history of being in the know with the USGA.  I know that I am not the first to come up with any of this stuff.  I am just trying to reconcile positions you have recently taken and my understanding of the various issues.

For instance, on a recent thread I asked how the distance of the old distance balls varied from the distances of the new balls at different swing speeds and you wrote that if the Pinnacle and the Prov1 were both conforming at or near the distance limit, then neither of them could be considered longer than the other regardless of swing speed.  

I just dont think this logic makes sense . . . 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.  This was the point of my chart where the two linear distance lines crossed at the ODS limit.  

So let me ask you straight out: Do you agree 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?

The reason I ask is because this principle is the basis for just about all I have been saying, most of which you have disagreed with.

For example, I have suggested that the golf manufacturers have developed conforming golf balls which have disproportionately benefited elite players.  You have vehemently disagreed with this.   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.

[TEPaul]

"So let me ask you straight out: Do you agree 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?"

David:

I'm sure that's possible, and perhaps likely. For instance it seems likely that a high spin ball may have similar distance characteristics at say 90 mph with a low spin rate ball at 90mph but not at 120 mph. At 120 mph the trajectory of the high spin rate ball  is negatively affected distance-wise which basically reduces the linear affect on distance compared to a low spin ball at 120mph.

"The reason I ask is because this principle is the basis for just about all I have been saying, most of which you have disagreed with."

I'm sure that principle is the basis for just about all you've been saying, and yes, I disagree with it.

"For example, I have suggested that the golf manufacturers have developed conforming golf balls which have disproportionately benefited elite players."

You've said that many times and the USGA has suggested  there is no disportionate benefit to the elite player vs the slow swing speed player with the low spin rate ball. They've said the distance relationship of the conforming low spin rate ball is linear with the slow swing speed player vs the high swing speed player across the swing speed spectrum.

"You have vehemently disagreed with this."

I've disagree with that. I'm not sure I'd say vehemently, though.
 
"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."

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

[Jeff Fortson]

Two things...

"Athleticism" has nothing to do with the physics of the flight of a golf ball.  Swing speed, ball spin, MOI are all factors but to point a finger at athleticism is a cop out.  Athleticism may create higher swing speeds but thats it.  Athleticism shouldn't even be mentioned.  Swing speed may be the by-product but who cares.  Its pointless to talk about athleticism when you can't put it in the equation scientifically.  How can you quantify athleticism scientifically?  Swing speed.  So let's leave athleticism out of the equation.

Art Sellinger (former long drive champ) was swinging the club close to 150mph in 1991 and I saw him hit a balata through a telephone book.  Then I watched him hit rip a telephone book in half.  The guy was a monster.  I watched him crush Pinnacles 330 yards in Vegas (not sea level).  This was the long drive champ crushing a 2 piece Pinnacle 330.  I watched at least 10 drives reach 330 today in the Honda.


What this all brings to light for me was that someone in the past should have made golf played with one kind of ball.  Sure it's characteristics could have changed over the years but at least it could be closely monitored and regulated and the players would never be able to have balls made for their exact needs (i.e. Tiger, Duval, etc.).  I know that hindsight is 20/20 and it's a pipe dream but I think golf might have been better off had that happened.  We're the only major sport that uses a ball where the competitors use different kinds of balls from one another.


Jeff F.

[DMoriarty]

Jeff Forston said:

I watched at least 10 drives reach 330 today in the Honda.

You saw ten players reach 330?  At least 10 players drove it 370 today on the 6th hole alone.
____________________

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."

and TEPaul responded . . .

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

[my bolds]

If the section I bolded is correct, then what about the ProV1 and the ProV1x?  Both are low spin balls, yet at very high swing speeds the ProV1x is quite a bit longer than the ProV1.  Surely you are not claiming that the ProV1 and the ProV1x fly the same distance at very high swing speeds, are you?  

[Jeff Fortson]

For what it's worth, I hit the ProV1x about 8-10 yards further than the ProV1 with the driver.  My average swing speed is about 118mph (and rising with my fitness program).


Jeff F.

[Bryan Izatt]

Two things...

"Athleticism" has nothing to do with the physics of the flight of a golf ball.  That's true   Swing speed, ball spin, MOI are all factors Swing speed is not a factor in the physics of the flight of a golf ball.  Ball spin and MOI are.  Launch angle and ball speed at launch are.  So is the dimple pattern on the ball.  So too are the weather conditions - temperature, humidity etc.  but to point a finger at athleticism is a cop out.  Athleticism may create higher swing speeds but thats it.  Athleticism shouldn't even be mentioned.   Why not?  Ball speed is directly dependent (linearly, non-linearly, exponentially or explosively, depending on who's theory you like) on swing speed.  Swing speed is dependent on golf athleticism (speed, strength, coordination, flexibility for example).   Swing speed may be the by-product but who cares.  Its pointless to talk about athleticism when you can't put it in the equation scientifically.  How can you quantify athleticism scientifically?  Swing speed.  So let's leave athleticism out of the equation. Just because you can't quatify it, doesn't mean it shouldn't be included.  Swing speed could be a good surrogate for athleticism.  If you're not a good golf athlete you're not going to be able to achieve high swing speeds and deliver the club square to the ball.  Or you could measure things like shoulder rotation, length of delay in release of wrist cock, hip rotation speed, or other such things that describe the athleticism of golf.  

There are, of course, multiple "scientific" equations for the flight of the golf ball given the launch conditions.  All the launch monitor companies have them for example.  Some even include COR factors.  The atleticism is captured by the initial ball speed which depends on club speed and COR.  Club speed is dependent on golf athleticism.


What this all brings to light for me was that someone in the past should have made golf played with one kind of ball.   Argh, a wish for a benign dictatorship.   Sure it's characteristics could have changed over the years but at least it could be closely monitored and regulated and the players would never be able to have balls made for their exact needs (i.e. Tiger, Duval, etc.).  I know that hindsight is 20/20 and it's a pipe dream but I think golf might have been better off had that happened.  We're the only major sport that uses a ball where the competitors use different kinds of balls from one another.    Most other major sports only use one ball that's shared amongst the participants.  Each player has their own ball in golf.  Although bowling may not be a major sport, do the players not have their own balls?  


Jeff F.

For what it's worth, I hit the ProV1x about 8-10 yards further than the ProV1 with the driver.  My average swing speed is about 118mph (and rising with my fitness program).  So, you're one of the ones enjoying the "explosive" benefits of the modern ball.  What's you're carry distance?  Have you optimized your equipment on a launch monitor?  Is the extra 8 to 10 yards carry or roll or partly both?

[Jeff Fortson]

Two things...

"Athleticism" has nothing to do with the physics of the flight of a golf ball.  That's true   Swing speed, ball spin, MOI are all factors Swing speed is not a factor in the physics of the flight of a golf ball.  Ball spin and MOI are.  Launch angle and ball speed at launch are.  So is the dimple pattern on the ball.  So too are the weather conditions - temperature, humidity etc.  but to point a finger at athleticism is a cop out.  Athleticism may create higher swing speeds but thats it.  Athleticism shouldn't even be mentioned.   Why not?  Ball speed is directly dependent (linearly, non-linearly, exponentially or explosively, depending on who's theory you like) on swing speed.  Swing speed is dependent on golf athleticism (speed, strength, coordination, flexibility for example).   Swing speed may be the by-product but who cares.  Its pointless to talk about athleticism when you can't put it in the equation scientifically.  How can you quantify athleticism scientifically?  Swing speed.  So let's leave athleticism out of the equation. Just because you can't quatify it, doesn't mean it shouldn't be included.  Swing speed could be a good surrogate for athleticism.  If you're not a good golf athlete you're not going to be able to achieve high swing speeds and deliver the club square to the ball.  Or you could measure things like shoulder rotation, length of delay in release of wrist cock, hip rotation speed, or other such things that describe the athleticism of golf.  

There are, of course, multiple "scientific" equations for the flight of the golf ball given the launch conditions.  All the launch monitor companies have them for example.  Some even include COR factors.  The atleticism is captured by the initial ball speed which depends on club speed and COR.  Club speed is dependent on golf athleticism.


What this all brings to light for me was that someone in the past should have made golf played with one kind of ball.   Argh, a wish for a benign dictatorship.   Sure it's characteristics could have changed over the years but at least it could be closely monitored and regulated and the players would never be able to have balls made for their exact needs (i.e. Tiger, Duval, etc.).  I know that hindsight is 20/20 and it's a pipe dream but I think golf might have been better off had that happened.  We're the only major sport that uses a ball where the competitors use different kinds of balls from one another.    Most other major sports only use one ball that's shared amongst the participants.  Each player has their own ball in golf.  Although bowling may not be a major sport, do the players not have their own balls?  


Jeff F.

For what it's worth, I hit the ProV1x about 8-10 yards further than the ProV1 with the driver.  My average swing speed is about 118mph (and rising with my fitness program).  So, you're one of the ones enjoying the "explosive" benefits of the modern ball.  What's you're carry distance?  Have you optimized your equipment on a launch monitor?  Is the extra 8 to 10 yards carry or roll or partly both?

Bryan,

Yes, swing speed is not a factor in the physics of the flight of a golf ball.  I shouldn't have worded it that way.  The power transfered to the golf ball created from swing speed is.  Ball speed is by in large a product of swing speed.  However, I thank you for correcting me.  

Basically, what I was trying to say is that the USGA should not be wasting their time looking into the athleticism of golfers.  It's humorous, at best.  They should stick to scientific numbers such as swing speed, ball speed, ball spin, etc.  That's all I was really trying to say.  Is the USGA going to tell people to stop working out?  It's ridiculous.  The golf swing is also pointless for them to consider.  They need to simply monitor the numbers, IMO.  The USGA can monitor and govern over scientific numbers, not people's fitness programs and swing mechanics.  If there were something like steroid use going on then they should look into it, but I find that possibility low in comparison to other sports.

I agree that most other sports use one single ball between all of the players (i.e. baseball, basketball, tennis, etc.) and that is what makes their effect on the ball and their subsequent status in their sport so easily distinguishable from their peers.  Barry Bonds doesn't have a ball that is tailored for him that a pitcher has to use when he steps up to the plate.  I know the baseball has gotten hotter over the years, and so on and so forth, but it's really not too far off from where it was 20 years ago and whatever "hotness" that has been created has been controlled on monitored by MLB.  Baseball park fences shrinking in distance from home plate and steroids have also greatly contributed to an increase in power numbers in MLB.  But in basketball we know who can handle the ball the best, shoot the best from the floor, and from the line.  Steve Nash doesn't get a ball that fits his needs when he goes on offense, etc, etc.

You bring up bowling.  Sure the balls are "different", as in two different objects, but their characteristics (aside from color) are almost always similar.  Maybe slightly different weights and finger hole sizes but that's it.  There aren't high and low spin bowling balls.  Golf balls have different cores, covers, dimples, etc.  To compare the two doesn't work, IMO.  

Look, I am not advocating that we change to one ball that everyone should play.  It's an impossibility.  I was merely daydreaming about what it would have been like had the USGA or R&A at a very early point in the 20th Century enforced a uniform ball rule.  What would the consequences have been?  Maybe bad, maybe good.  Who knows?  I'd like to think it would have made it better.  

By the way, my carry distance is @285 yards.  It has been checked at HotStix in Phoenix on a state of the art launch monitor.  HotStix is the God of all things tech out west.  Virtually all the tour pros that live in the Phoenix area go there all the time.  They are unbelievable and they are the only people I let adjust or build my clubs.  My 8-10 yards gained with the ProV1x over the ProV1 is carry distance.


Jeff F.

[A_Clay_Man]

I'm the real contrairian here, and like everyone else, can see how the different games(pros & the rest of us) have evolved to where it is today.

Many of those who LOVE this sport are crying about how much it now sucks. Personally, IMO ten years ain't a whole hell of a long time for a bunch of guys who... in 1988ish

They were  looking at the technology of clubs and balls only in a very controlled and perhaps limited test protocol (it seems limited now but it didn't back then). As you can see in the 2002 R&A/USGA Joint Statement of Principles "athletisim" is no longer outside their I&B purview as it relates to distance production. Essentially nothing is any longer, not even course conditions

TePaul's words

A high Swing speed turns out to be a pretty good skill? Who knew?

Good GCA used to tempt the way layer. And when every pro layed-up, because the gca wasn't tempting enough, people called it boring.

Now that everyone has learned how to way lay, under control, challenges aren't there anymore?

Who's the fickle one?


That's why it is up to the archie to figure out the puzzle. not regulation. Otherwise, the same attitude will rear it's ugly head again. As soon as someone figures out how to out-think the regulation, out-science the science, again.

  If courses/memberhips feel as they are losing relavance, then they are.  There's no pity, in nature.

Seeing Words used like "regulate" and "monitor" are all products of the game mind.

Aren't they?

 

[Jeff Fortson]

Seeing Words used like "regulate" and "monitor" are all products of the game mind.

Aren't they?

 

Maybe we should do away with the rules of golf as well.  Don't the rules monitor and regulate the game?  The last person alive to finish a tournament could be the winner.    

If one wants the game to be competitive then one needs rules to create a controlled environment for the competitors to compare to one another.


Jeff F.

[A_Clay_Man]

Jeff, That is an interesting choice of words. "if one want's this game to be competitive".

Even without tournament golf, the sport would be challenging (therefore competitive) to most, using the ground and wind as both aid and obstacle.

The nature of man and golf collide in this debate. Does golf, as a whole, represent the trends of man? Isn't it man's desire to be better, get better and is often his nature to do so by most any means necessary? And isn't necessity the mother of invention?

If the testing of skill is the focus, does anyone think the champions that are being crowned, today, have none, or are less skilled than those of yesteryear?

[Bryan Izatt]

Two things...

"Athleticism" has nothing to do with the physics of the flight of a golf ball.  That's true   Swing speed, ball spin, MOI are all factors Swing speed is not a factor in the physics of the flight of a golf ball.  Ball spin and MOI are.  Launch angle and ball speed at launch are.  So is the dimple pattern on the ball.  So too are the weather conditions - temperature, humidity etc.  but to point a finger at athleticism is a cop out.  Athleticism may create higher swing speeds but thats it.  Athleticism shouldn't even be mentioned.   Why not?  Ball speed is directly dependent (linearly, non-linearly, exponentially or explosively, depending on who's theory you like) on swing speed.  Swing speed is dependent on golf athleticism (speed, strength, coordination, flexibility for example).   Swing speed may be the by-product but who cares.  Its pointless to talk about athleticism when you can't put it in the equation scientifically.  How can you quantify athleticism scientifically?  Swing speed.  So let's leave athleticism out of the equation. Just because you can't quatify it, doesn't mean it shouldn't be included.  Swing speed could be a good surrogate for athleticism.  If you're not a good golf athlete you're not going to be able to achieve high swing speeds and deliver the club square to the ball.  Or you could measure things like shoulder rotation, length of delay in release of wrist cock, hip rotation speed, or other such things that describe the athleticism of golf.  

There are, of course, multiple "scientific" equations for the flight of the golf ball given the launch conditions.  All the launch monitor companies have them for example.  Some even include COR factors.  The atleticism is captured by the initial ball speed which depends on club speed and COR.  Club speed is dependent on golf athleticism.


What this all brings to light for me was that someone in the past should have made golf played with one kind of ball.   Argh, a wish for a benign dictatorship.   Sure it's characteristics could have changed over the years but at least it could be closely monitored and regulated and the players would never be able to have balls made for their exact needs (i.e. Tiger, Duval, etc.).  I know that hindsight is 20/20 and it's a pipe dream but I think golf might have been better off had that happened.  We're the only major sport that uses a ball where the competitors use different kinds of balls from one another.    Most other major sports only use one ball that's shared amongst the participants.  Each player has their own ball in golf.  Although bowling may not be a major sport, do the players not have their own balls?  


Jeff F.

For what it's worth, I hit the ProV1x about 8-10 yards further than the ProV1 with the driver.  My average swing speed is about 118mph (and rising with my fitness program).  So, you're one of the ones enjoying the "explosive" benefits of the modern ball.  What's you're carry distance?  Have you optimized your equipment on a launch monitor?  Is the extra 8 to 10 yards carry or roll or partly both?

Bryan,

Yes, swing speed is not a factor in the physics of the flight of a golf ball.  I shouldn't have worded it that way.  The power transfered to the golf ball created from swing speed is.  Ball speed is by in large a product of swing speed.  However, I thank you for correcting me.  Always happy to help  

Basically, what I was trying to say is that the USGA should not be wasting their time looking into the athleticism of golfers.  It's humorous, at best.  They should stick to scientific numbers such as swing speed, ball speed, ball spin, etc.  That's all I was really trying to say.  Is the USGA going to tell people to stop working out?  It's ridiculous.  The golf swing is also pointless for them to consider.  They need to simply monitor the numbers, IMO.  The USGA can monitor and govern over scientific numbers, not people's fitness programs and swing mechanics.    I agree that the regulation should be of measurable things.  I was assuming that the USGA was trying to eliminate the athleticism effect from the equation, so they could focus on equipment and balls.  If "athleticism" accounts for 50% of the distance increases then it would suggest that the other regulateable factors are less important than we think.  The trouble with all this debate is that us poor souls out here have no real knowledge of which factors contribute how much to the distance increases we see.  I assume the USGA is trying to sort that out with their on-going study.  Trying to determine how much of the gain is attributable to athleticism seems reasonable, albeit difficult, to me.  Like every other sport, the best professional golfers are, by and large, bigger, stronger and faster than their predecessors.   If there were something like steroid use going on then they should look into it, but I find that possibility low in comparison to other sports.

I agree that most other sports use one single ball between all of the players (i.e. baseball, basketball, tennis, etc.) and that is what makes their effect on the ball and their subsequent status in their sport so easily distinguishable from their peers.  Barry Bonds doesn't have a ball that is tailored for him that a pitcher has to use when he steps up to the plate.  I know the baseball has gotten hotter over the years, and so on and so forth, but it's really not too far off from where it was 20 years ago and whatever "hotness" that has been created has been controlled on monitored by MLB.  Baseball park fences shrinking in distance from home plate and steroids have also greatly contributed to an increase in power numbers in MLB.  But in basketball we know who can handle the ball the best, shoot the best from the floor, and from the line.  Steve Nash doesn't get a ball that fits his needs when he goes on offense, etc, etc.

You bring up bowling.  Sure the balls are "different", as in two different objects, but their characteristics (aside from color) are almost always similar.  Maybe slightly different weights and finger hole sizes but that's it.  There aren't high and low spin bowling balls.  Golf balls have different cores, covers, dimples, etc.  To compare the two doesn't work, IMO.  

Look, I am not advocating that we change to one ball that everyone should play.  It's an impossibility.  I was merely daydreaming about what it would have been like had the USGA or R&A at a very early point in the 20th Century enforced a uniform ball rule.  What would the consequences have been?  Maybe bad, maybe good.  Who knows?  I'd like to think it would have made it better.    For what it's worth I think it would have been better too from a competitiveness point of view.  It might also have stifled the innovation process and thus restrained the distance gains of the ball.  But as a amateur golfer, I don't feel that the ball has seriously changed the way I play the game, nor changed my appreciation of, or ability to play classic or modern courses.  Or my joy in playing the game.  So, I don't wish that someone had regulated a uniform ball at some previous point in history.  

By the way, my carry distance is @285 yards.  It has been checked at HotStix in Phoenix on a state of the art launch monitor.  HotStix is the God of all things tech out west.  Virtually all the tour pros that live in the Phoenix area go there all the time.  They are unbelievable and they are the only people I let adjust or build my clubs.  My 8-10 yards gained with the ProV1x over the ProV1 is carry distance.    I've certainly heard of HotStix; sounds like an interesting place to optimize.  Do you know from your experience there whether your carry distance and swing speed are consistent with the tour pros that go there?  Or, do they generally have higher swing speeds?  Or do they get more distance at the same swing speed?  Do you suppose they have data from their testing of various pros, and amateurs, that they could share information with us about the relationship between swing speed and distance?  And between different kinds of balls?  Somewhere, sometime, somebody's got to have this data and have it available to inform this debate, or so I continue to hope.


Jeff F.

[DMoriarty]

I agree that the regulation should be of measurable things.  I was assuming that the USGA was trying to eliminate the athleticism effect from the equation, so they could focus on equipment and balls.  If "athleticism" accounts for 50% of the distance increases then it would suggest that the other regulateable factors are less important than we think.  The trouble with all this debate is that us poor souls out here have no real knowledge of which factors contribute how much to the distance increases we see.  I assume the USGA is trying to sort that out with their on-going study.  Trying to determine how much of the gain is attributable to athleticism seems reasonable, albeit difficult, to me.  Like every other sport, the best professional golfers are, by and large, bigger, stronger and faster than their predecessors.  

Brian, I dont really like the term "athletism" because it encompasses much more than what we are really talking about.  We are really talking about swing speed.  It is impossible to seperate out drastic increases in swing speed from the technological advancement because the technological advancement precipitated the swing speed increases.   Had swinging at 125 mph been an efficient benefit with the old balls and old equipment, they would have been heading that direction a long time ago.    And remember that even optimization is an application of technology to make swinging at these high speeds more efficient.  

Further, even to the extent that the distance gains are a result of "atheticism" not brought on by technology, who cares?   Whatever the cause, the game is out of balance, and it makes much more sense to regulate the impliments as opposed to the athlete.  

I dont have stats from HotStix but here are around twenty of the longer drivers on tour in 2002 then in 2003, the year they switched to the ProV1x.  

[Bryan Izatt]

I agree that the regulation should be of measurable things.  I was assuming that the USGA was trying to eliminate the athleticism effect from the equation, so they could focus on equipment and balls.  If "athleticism" accounts for 50% of the distance increases then it would suggest that the other regulateable factors are less important than we think.  The trouble with all this debate is that us poor souls out here have no real knowledge of which factors contribute how much to the distance increases we see.  I assume the USGA is trying to sort that out with their on-going study.  Trying to determine how much of the gain is attributable to athleticism seems reasonable, albeit difficult, to me.  Like every other sport, the best professional golfers are, by and large, bigger, stronger and faster than their predecessors.  

Brian, I dont really like the term "athletism" because it encompasses much more than what we are really talking about.  We are really talking about swing speed.  It is impossible to seperate out drastic increases in swing speed from the technological advancement because the technological advancement precipitated the swing speed increases.   It may be difficult, but it's not impossible to try to analyze the contributing factors to swing speed increases.  Absolutely the club technology has contributed to swing speed increases. But, I think it is erroneous to say that the equipment solely led to swing speed increases.  In the last ten years there has been a significant bulking up of pro golfers precipitated by Tiger and his workout regimen.  How many current players work out vs how many do you suppose worked out in Nicklaus' era or Hogan's era.  As in every other sport, basketball, baseball, hockey, football, track, etc the athletes are demonstrably bigger, stronger and faster.  I think that has more to do with swing speed increases than technology of the driver does.  But I have no data to support or refute that thought. I have seen claims by club designers that going to a lighter graphite shaft from steel might gain you a few mph in swing speed.   Had swinging at 125 mph been an efficient benefit with the old balls and old equipment, they would have been heading that direction a long time ago.      Every era had its long hitters.  Are you suggesting that those players (e.g. Mike Souchak or even Jack) didn't have swing speeds of 125mph?   And remember that even optimization is an application of technology to make swinging at these high speeds more efficient.    I do.    But I also remember that the player swinging the new technology also contributes to the swing speed.  To paraphrase Tom Wishon, the golfer is the engine, the club is the drive shaft.  A more powerful engine can move the driveshaft faster.  

Further, even to the extent that the distance gains are a result of "atheticism" not brought on by technology, who cares? Don't you think it would be reasonable to understand the various causes of the effect?  There are at least five causes for the distance effect - the golfer, the shaft, the clubhead, the ball, and the agronomic condtioning of the courses. You should care about understanding each, before you regulate one, don't you think? Whatever the cause, the game is out of balance, and it makes much more sense to regulate the impliments as opposed to the athlete.  It makes sense to me to understand the causes of the out-of-balance before regulating the implements.  A few years ago the USGA was sure it was spring-like effect, and that hasn't exactly held back the tide.  I never said regulate the athlete.  That would be silly (other than regulating drug usage).  

I dont have stats from HotStix but here are around twenty of the longer drivers on tour in 2002 then in 2003, the year they switched to the ProV1x.  



 Nice chart, although it would be better presented if it was a stacked bar graph.  Like all such comparisons the flaw is that it's not a controlled experiment.  The other variables that might affect distance increases between the two years were not controlled.  For instance, did any of them change driver heads or shafts; did they optimize; did they increase their workout regimen; were the measured holes on the same courses in the same shape in the same weather conditions?  The data is scientifically unreliable if you don't control the variables.  And before you rebut, I don't disagree that the V1x is longer for your sample population than the V1.  The data just doesn't prove how much it is.  

[Jeff Fortson]

 Nice chart, although it would be better presented if it was a stacked bar graph.  Like all such comparisons the flaw is that it's not a controlled experiment.  The other variables that might affect distance increases between the two years were not controlled.  For instance, did any of them change driver heads or shafts; did they optimize; did they increase their workout regimen; were the measured holes on the same courses in the same shape in the same weather conditions?  The data is scientifically unreliable if you don't control the variables.  And before you rebut, I don't disagree that the V1x is longer for your sample population than the V1.  The data just doesn't prove how much it is.  

Bryan, good point but...

are you suggesting that all 20 of these players worked out harder, started using more advanced drivers with more advanced shafts, and the courses they played were all in firmer condition at higher altitutdes?  

I think it is easy to assume that while it is true that some of the players may have changed drivers or played at higher altitudes with firmer conditions, that not all of them did.  The one consistent variable between them all is that they switched from the ProV1 to the ProV1x.  I think it is fair to suggest that by changing the ball they used they gained most, if not all, of their distance increase from it alone.


Jeff F.

[DMoriarty]

But, I think it is erroneous to say that the equipment solely led to swing speed increases.  In the last ten years there has been a significant bulking up of pro golfers precipitated by Tiger and his workout regimen.  How many current players work out vs how many do you suppose worked out in Nicklaus' era or Hogan's era.  As in every other sport, basketball, baseball, hockey, football, track, etc the athletes are demonstrably bigger, stronger and faster.

I dont think many did because I dont think in was as beneficial for them to do so.  The equipment couldnt handle the modern swing and still produce consistent and efficient results.  

Besides, if you look at single player changes in distance you can control for athleticism to a great degree.  A few players have been around 20 years, many more have been around 10 years, a lot have been around for 5 years.   The long players of the past have gotten much longer with the new technology.   Freddie Couples and Davis Love are not "bigger, stronger, and faster" than they were in their prime, but they hit the ball a heck of a lot farther then they used to.   Likewise for many of the players who have not been around as long.  Eliminate the young guns from your charts and you still see the same progression of distance.   And these guys are past their physical prime.

I think that has more to do with swing speed increases than technology of the driver does.  But I have no data to support or refute that thought. I have seen claims by club designers that going to a lighter graphite shaft from steel might gain you a few mph in swing speed.  

Lighter and longer shafts certain made a different, but the main factor I am talking about is the ball.  Swing too hard at a high spinning ball and you get diminishing returns because the ball will balloon and also because any sidespin will be amplified.  Also the large sweet spots make precise hits less necessary thus allowing them to swing harder without worrying about being a cm off the center of the club.  Also high speed shaft technology has produced more stable and resilients shafts.    Just that fact that the clubs hold together without breaking at these swing speeds is impressive and a product of technology.

 

Every era had its long hitters.  Are you suggesting that those players (e.g. Mike Souchak or even Jack) didn't have swing speeds of 125mph?  

Yes I am suggesting that the successful big hitters of past eras did not swing nearly as hard as the big hitters do now.  And this includes Jack. Watch the tapes. Could they have?  Probably, and maybe occassionally they did, but for the most part swinging that fast just was not worth it.  Now could they hit one over a range fence to show off when they wanted to?  Yes, but on the course it was not an efficient way to succeed.  

To paraphrase Tom Wishon, the golfer is the engine, the club is the drive shaft.  A more powerful engine can move the driveshaft faster.  

 

A perfect analogy.   A more powerful engine could move the drive shaft faster, but it would be foolish to use too much power unless the drive shaft, differential, transmission, tires, etc. all are strong enough and technologically advanced enough to handle the power.  

In the past the supporting equipment just wasnt technologically advanced to handle too much swing speed, now it is.  That is why they are swing so much harder now, because their driveshafts and wheels can handle it.  

Don't you think it would be reasonable to understand the various causes of the effect?  There are at least five causes for the distance effect - the golfer, the shaft, the clubhead, the ball, and the agronomic condtioning of the courses. You should care about understanding each, before you regulate one, don't you think?

When I said "who cares" I meant that I dont care if the gains are 100 percent from swing speed increases, the game is still out of balance.   As for what caused the imbalance I do care, but not to the extent that I support endlessly testing and speculating about what caused what.  We have problem that needs to be fixed yesterday, and the longer we wait the harder it is to fix.

 It makes sense to me to understand the causes of the out-of-balance before regulating the implements.  A few years ago the USGA was sure it was spring-like effect, and that hasn't exactly held back the tide.  I never said regulate the athlete.  That would be silly (other than regulating drug usage).  

They knew that COR of the club was only a small part of it. or at least they should have.  

Nice chart, although it would be better presented if it was a stacked bar graph.  Like all such comparisons the flaw is that it's not a controlled experiment.  The other variables that might affect distance increases between the two years were not controlled.  For instance, did any of them change driver heads or shafts; did they optimize; did they increase their workout regimen; were the measured holes on the same courses in the same shape in the same weather conditions?  The data is scientifically unreliable if you don't control the variables.  And before you rebut, I don't disagree that the V1x is longer for your sample population than the V1.  The data just doesn't prove how much it is.  

Sorry you dont like my choice of chart type,  when you do yours, feel free to use stacked bar graphs.  

Unfortunately I cant control the variables but I do the best I can with what I have.  I didn't claim that the chart was scientific or that it should be used to determine the exact increase in distance gained by the PrV1x for big hitters.  

But that being said, to dismiss these results is entirely as unscientific is disingenuine.  All the other variables you mention do not come close to explaining the bulk of these increases.
 
My main interest was in controlling for athleticism.   Now if you come back to suggest that all these players simultaneously changed their workout regimin at the same time to produce these results, then I know you aren't really being genuine.  

[TEPaul]

David Moriarty said;

“If the section I bolded is correct, then what about the ProV1 and the ProV1x?  Both are low spin balls, yet at very high swing speeds the ProV1x is quite a bit longer than the ProV1.  Surely you are not claiming that the ProV1 and the ProV1x fly the same distance at very high swing speeds, are you? “

David:

That’s a big “If”. What would you call very high swing speed. Would 120mph be a very high swing speed in your opinion?

Jeff Fortson said;

“For what it's worth, I hit the ProV1x about 8-10 yards further than the ProV1 with the driver.  My average swing speed is about 118mph (and rising with my fitness program).”

Jeff:

If you hit a ProVx about 10 yards further than the ProV, then that would probably mean the ProV  was not at the USGA’s ODS limitation.  Because if the ProVx flies 10 further than the ProV and the ProV was at the USGA’s ODS limitation distance-wise, that would essentially mean the ProVx would be ODS “Non-conforming”. It’s a good example because if your swing speed is 118 that is very close to the USGA’s ODS swing speed test factor.

Whatever the case it seems the USGA’s Tech Center really does not agree with either of you. David, do you think your trolling the Internet for driving distance Tour stats and using them to construct your own hypothetical graphs is more scientifically reliable than the USGA’s multi-million dollar Ball and Equipment Test Center?

Jeff, do you think your personal observation with a ProV and a ProVx is more scientifically reliable than the USGA’s Tech Center?

[TEPaul]

"They knew that COR of the club was only a small part of it. or at least they should have."

David:

I've just sort of been skimming some of your posts but that remark almost makes me laugh. How do you know that? You've been making remarks on here on these distance related subjects and threads with a degree of certitude that seems almost comical. Who do you suppose understands better and knows more regarding the degree to which COR increase contributed the distance increase, you or Frank Thomas?  

[Pete Lavallee]

If you hit a ProVx about 10 yards further than the ProV, then that would probably mean the ProV  was not at the USGA’s ODS limitation.  Because if the ProVx flies 10 further than the ProV and the ProV was at the USGA’s ODS limitation distance-wise, that would essentially mean the ProVx would be ODS “Non-conforming”. It’s a good example because if your swing speed is 118 that is very close to the USGA’s ODS swing speed test factor.

Tom,

Why do you have a hard time understanding that with Jeff's driver he hits the ProV1x further, now should he change to the USGA test driver he might hit the ProV1 further. Its the difference in launch angle (coming primarily, but not soley, from the driver's loft) that makes the one ball travel further than the other for him. Heck, that's why they made the ProV1x, so people with higher swing speeds would not ballon their tee shots with the lower spinning ball. I would wager both balls are right up to the legal limit with the Iron Byron ODS test, but perform completely differently under different launch conditions and higher swing speeds.