Ohio Golf Assoc: First to try "Tournament Ball"

[Garland Bayley]

...It's common wisdom that if you use a softer flex shaft you can achieve greater clubhead speed (at some supposed loss of control).

Common wisdom is not always right! I doubt you can find any proof whatsoever of that claim.
I believe you will find the correct result is that a softer flex shaft gives you an increased loft!

[Jim Sweeney]

Bryan: My quotation is the sixth paragraph of the article which appeared on page 4 of this week's print version of Golfweek. I notice that I left out the words "at least" before "115 to 120 miles per hour."

I agree that there is a lot of confusing, contradictory information and speculation about ball issues. I was simply quoting from the article we are discussing.

Garland:

I agree with you about the chances of success of this experiment, at least in terms of any difinitive answers. It sort of reminds me of when the Tour took some players out to Pebble Beach to test groove designs. Since no two players swing alike, even using the same equipment, results were very different for different players.

However, I'm still intrigued. In fact, hopefully I will repeat as club champ this year and earn an invitation! Then as local noontime talk show host Willie Cunningham would say. "I'll give a full report!"

[Bryan Izatt]

...It's common wisdom that if you use a softer flex shaft you can achieve greater clubhead speed (at some supposed loss of control).

Common wisdom is not always right! I doubt you can find any proof whatsoever of that claim.
I believe you will find the correct result is that a softer flex shaft gives you an increased loft!

Garland, are you questioning that that is the common wisdom of club-makers?  Or that it is the common wisdom, but it's wrong?

I think you'll find that you can have a soft flex (say an R or even an A) that launches low because the shaft is designed with a high bend point (an Aldila NV would be a good example).  Conversely, you can get a very stiff shaft that launches high if it's designed with a low bend point (a Graphite Design Purple Ice being an example).  In modern fitting of shafts you have to pay attention to the shaft bend profile - not just the flex label on the shaft.

[Bryan Izatt]

Jim,

Thanks for the clarification.  Does the print version provide any additional information about the "overdrive" factor for high speed swingers?

As an Ohioan, and a potential candidate for their ball experiment (if you qualify) could you ask your Association if they would share their research information that would shed some light on this overdrive effect?  Would they likely share the information?

As a matter of interest, would you be impacted by the ball or are you in the proposed optimized swing speed range?

[Garland Bayley]

Bryan,

The common wisdom is wrong. See Wishon's book for example.
Compare apples to apples. Two shafts with similar bend points, the softer flex gives higher effective loft.

[Jim Sweeney]

Bryan,

The article gives no further information about the stated effect.

My top speed isw 112 mph, so I'm in between (read: screwed either way- ha ha!)

[TEPaul]

"The condition of competition question in this case combines the condition requiring the ball appearing on the list of approved balls, and the one ball rule. Both conditions are within the rules and are met in this case, so again, there is no problem rules-wise. I searched and searched, but I could find no rule, condition, decision, or anything that gives a player the right to play any ball he wishes."

Jim:

I don't think you're interpreting this correctly. The R&A/USGA Rules of Golf permit any competitor in a tournamet to use any golf ball on the R&A/USGA "conforming ball" list. The "One Ball" Local Rule only requires that a competitor must play that brand and marking only that he selects from the "conforming ball" list during that round. There is nothing (no R&A/USGA Local Rule) that permits a "Tournament Committee" to restrict a tournament competitor from selecting any golf ball on the R&A/USGA "conforming ball" list to use exclusively during a round (exclusively if the "One Ball" Local Rule is in effect)

[Bryan Izatt]

Bryan,

The common wisdom is wrong. See Wishon's book for example.Yup, Tom has a contrarian view on the common wisdom.
Compare apples to apples. Two shafts with similar bend points, the softer flex gives higher effective loft. Hard to say.  As I'm sure you know there are no standards as to what an R or an S flex is between manufacturers and even between models in one company.  So it's hard to say what a "softer flex" would be when comparing two shafts.  Do you mean softer in butt frequency sense?  If the tip ends had similar bend profiles but different butt profiles, would they launch different.  Hard to say.  In any event, looking at shaft launch information there doesn't seem to be much distinction in launch conditions between different flexes of the same shaft.  For example, the Aldila NV is described as low launch regardless of stated flex.

Of course, Wishon, in his book, doesn't seem to feel there is much effect from the shaft on the ball flight at all - "all the shaft does is .... dictate a small part of your shot trajectory...".  From testing a number of different shafts, I personally see significant differences.  Ah well, what would the world be if we all agreed on everything.

[Patrick_Mucci]

JSlonis,

Each of us should write to the Ohio Golf Association and thank and applaud them for their efforts.

[ForkaB]

"The condition of competition question in this case combines the condition requiring the ball appearing on the list of approved balls, and the one ball rule. Both conditions are within the rules and are met in this case, so again, there is no problem rules-wise. I searched and searched, but I could find no rule, condition, decision, or anything that gives a player the right to play any ball he wishes."

Jim:

I don't think you're interpreting this correctly. The R&A/USGA Rules of Golf permit any competitor in a tournamet to use any golf ball on the R&A/USGA "conforming ball" list. The "One Ball" Local Rule only requires that a competitor must play that brand and marking only that he selects from the "conforming ball" list during that round. There is nothing (no R&A/USGA Local Rule) that permits a "Tournament Committee" to restrict a tournament competitor from selecting any golf ball on the R&A/USGA "conforming ball" list to use exclusively during a round (exclusively if the "One Ball" Local Rule is in effect)

Tom

Is there anything that PROHIBITS a "Tournament Committee" from adopting a tournament ball rule (as long as the ball is conforming)?  Just wondering if the role model for the Rules is the US Constituion or Sharia Law.........

[Garland Bayley]

Bryan,

I believe the common wisdom originated with the first photos that showed the shaft bending forward in the impact zone. The golfer jocks saw that and thought the shaft is helping to whip the clubhead through the ball. The physicists concluded it is impossible to get this so called whipping effect in air and what was being observed was a combination of an offset center of gravity and centrifugal force. The centrifugal force is causing the offset center of gravity to try to line up with the shaft, thereby bending the shaft forward and increasing the loft.

Now you can go with the golfer jocks, but I am squarely in the corner with the physicists.

[Bryan Izatt]

Garland,

I haven't seen, despite some searching, a whole lot of studies of golf club dynamics conducted by physicists.  Do you have any references?

My understanding of the forward bend, or lead at impact, is that it is caused by the hands ceasing to accelerate (or slow down) before impact while the head continues to speed forward on the swing plane (hopefully).  When the head passes the shaft, because it is going faster than the butt end of the shaft, the shaft bends forward.  The forward bend increases the loft some and, depending on the torque also closes the face a bit.  And slows down the head.  So early release is bad.

[Garland Bayley]

Bryan,

Think of the golf swing as two boards connected by a hing. The arms are the upper board, the shaft the lower board. Early release is the hing has opened fully and the two boards are straight and turning at the rate of the upper board. Late release is the lower board travelling faster than the upper board trying to close the hing. That is why early release is bad. The fastest motion of the clubhead has been used up and slowed down before impact.

With an offset center of gravity all shafts bend forward in all golf swings. The distance they bend forward is dependent on the speed of the clubhead which produces the centrifugal force. Since the speed is slower with early release, the bend is less.

In addition to Wishon, I have a reference I can post this weekend, if I remember to.

[JSlonis]

JSlonis,

Each of us should write to the Ohio Golf Association and thank and applaud them for their efforts.

Not a bad idea.  It'll be interesting to see if there is any trickle down effect from the Ohio Golf Assoc's actions.

Here is a link to the webpage where you can email the OGA and voice your opinion of support for the issue:

http://www.ohiogolf.org/html/contact.asp

[Bryan Izatt]

Bryan,

Think of the golf swing as two boards connected by a hing. The arms are the upper board, the shaft the lower board. Early release is the hing has opened fully and the two boards are straight and turning at the rate of the upper board.  I think Garland, that the club head on the end of the shaft has a greater angular velocity than the butt end of the club or the hands or the arms or the shoulders, or the trunk, regardless of early or late release.  The clubhead and the upper board are never moving at the same angular velocity  Late release is the lower board travelling faster than the upper board trying to close the hing. That is why early release is bad. The fastest motion of the clubhead has been used up and slowed down before impact.   that's true.

With an offset center of gravity all shafts bend forward in all golf swings.  Which centre of gravity are you talking about?  Offset from what?  I think the bend is caused by the head outracing the butt.   In Wishon's book, he allows that Tiger's stinger is a shot where there is little or no release and therefore little or no forward bending.  There's certainly no increased loft.  If you check out True Temper's shaft lab their documentation suggests that lag as well as lead at impact is possible  The distance they bend forward is dependent on the speed of the clubhead which produces the centrifugal force. Since the speed is slower with early release, the bend is less.

In addition to Wishon, I have a reference I can post this weekend, if I remember to.    If you remember that'd be great.

[TEPaul]

"Tom
Is there anything that PROHIBITS a "Tournament Committee" from adopting a tournament ball rule (as long as the ball is conforming)?  Just wondering if the role model for the Rules is the US Constituion or Sharia Law........."

Rich:

That's the question, isn't it? At least it certainly is from a tournament administrator's perspective. Most of the morning today I've been on the phone with all kinds of people on this OGA move, including the author of the article, some of those responsible for it at the OGA and I've also spoken with the USGA's Rules of Golf Dept and the man who's probably considered to be the world's best authority on the Rules of Golf and other administrators who are really good on all things to do with the Rules, particularly Rule 33, "Local" Rules and the appendices.

Seems to me the short answer is there's no unanimity of opinion on this amongst even the best in the world on Rules, in other words, in a strict "Rules" sense, they just don't know. This question is probably very likely to get to the R&A/USGA Joint Rules Committee for review and perhaps a decision.

There doesn't seem to be any Rule that PROHIBITS this kind of thing but some experts actually think there doesn't need to be.

I suppose one may be able to argue that point because an analogy very well may be the R&A/USGA's "One Ball" Local Rule. For some "committee" to have adopted a "One Ball" rule before it existed within the R&A/USGA Rules of Golf (as one of their "Local" Rules) does not seem to be prohibited by the Rules of Golf either. There does not seem to be anything in the Rules that would've prohibited any "committee" from essentially adopting that "local" rule on there own. So one could ask why then did the R&A/USGA feel the need to institute the "One Ball" Rule under their "Local" or "Specimen" Rules?

I asked that question of some of these experts and none really knew but all speculated that perhaps it was done merely for the convenience of tournament committees everywhere. Their thinking may've just been at least all tournament committees would have similar wording to use for the adoption of a "One Ball" Rule into their "Conditions of Competition".  

I think in the final analysis most of these kinds of things are simply decided to create as much unanimity within the Rules of Golf as possible. To them that simply means with as much unanimity as possible within the Rules it will simply be easier and more understandable for golfers to play the game by the Rules.  

[Garland Bayley]

Garland,

I haven't seen, despite some searching, a whole lot of studies of golf club dynamics conducted by physicists.  Do you have any references?

My understanding of the forward bend, or lead at impact, is that it is caused by the hands ceasing to accelerate (or slow down) before impact while the head continues to speed forward on the swing plane (hopefully).  When the head passes the shaft, because it is going faster than the butt end of the shaft, the shaft bends forward.  The forward bend increases the loft some and, depending on the torque also closes the face a bit.  And slows down the head.  So early release is bad.

It seems to me that there are only three times when the head is not "going faster than the butt end of the shaft"; before the swing, after the swing, and the point where it stops to change direction. Therefore, essentially at any other time "the forward bend" occurs, and not just at "impact". This forward bend is caused by centrifugal force and is highest near the point of impact (when the clubhead is traveling the fastest).

[...I think Garland, that the club head on the end of the shaft has a greater angular velocity than the butt end of the club or the hands or the arms or the shoulders, or the trunk, regardless of early or late release.  The clubhead and the upper board are never moving at the same angular velocity ...

The way I described it above, I thought I could make the idea clearer more easily by describing a hinge that would stop swinging once it became straight. You are correct, the wrists are not such a hinge, so the clubhead will go on swinging faster than the hands.

...Which centre of gravity are you talking about?  Offset from what?  I think the bend is caused by the head outracing the butt.   In Wishon's book, he allows that Tiger's stinger is a shot where there is little or no release and therefore little or no forward bending.  There's certainly no increased loft.  If you check out True Temper's shaft lab their documentation suggests that lag as well as lead at impact is possible...

The center of gravity of the clubhead is offset from the line extending down the shaft. If Wishon said that, he's wrong. If Tiger is not releasing, the head speed is less and the bend is less. The ball flies low because he is not releasing. Since he is not releasing his hand position has delofted the clubface.

Do you have a url for this True Temper lag nonsense?

[Bryan Izatt]

Do you have a url for this True Temper lag nonsense?

Sure, it's:    http://www.truetemper.com/shaftlab/profile.html

If you don't like the nonsense you see there, e-mail their support people; they were pretty helpful when I called them about the results I saw when I tried the Shaftlab.

[Tony Ristola]

A comment on the article:

Good for the OGA.
The first step is the toughest, and let's hope it opens a can of worms; is the crack in the dam, and a host of followers results. Followers that push the envelope harder.

Perhaps the OGA should use the Magna!

[Garland Bayley]

Bryan,

See Chapter 19 of How Golf Clubs Really Word and How to Optimize Their Designs by Frank D. Werner and Richard C. Greig. Absent that see R. D. Milne and J. P. Davis, "The role of the shaft in the golf swing", Journal of Biomechanics, Vol 129, No 9. p 975-983 (1992), or A. J. Cochran (ed), Science and Golf, Part 3 (E & FN Spon, London, 1990).

As for the True Temper web site, I can only attribute that to a disgraceful marketing attempt to take advantage of the whipping myth.

[Garland Bayley]

...
Here, I am suggesting that Ohio will not be very successful with what they are attempting to do.

Please don't get me wrong. I too applaud the OGA, the other OGA since I am from Oregon , for their effort!

[Patrick_Mucci]

JSlonis,

Each of us should write to the Ohio Golf Association and thank and applaud them for their efforts.

JSlonis,

In addition, each of us should write to our state/regional golf associations and the USGA and tell them that they should follow the example set by the Ohio Golf Association.

This is a movement/gesture that needs support from those who play and love the game.

[A.G._Crockett]

I applaud the OGA for trying something different, but I have reservations about this.

The "non-linear" stuff is an important consideration.  I'll agree that there is no ball out there that gives a 12% gain at 120 mph but only 10% at 105 mph.  However, if the gain is 10% distance for 10% swing speed, the gap will grow between two players, since 10% of a bigger number is a bigger number.  If Player A was driving the ball 280 and Player B only 240, and both pick up 10%, Player B is now another 1/2 club shorter than Player A; another 10% and it becomes a full club.  This is where the "non-linear" idea comes from, incorrect terminology though it may be.

BUT, and this is important, part of being a better player is hitting it farther and straighter, isn't it?

What the OGA proposes to do is find a ball that reduces the better player's advantage for being a better player, which ain't the way it is supposed to be, is it?  IF that ball exists (and that is a BIG if, I think) why penalize only the longer hitters?  Why not find a ball that spins like crazy off the driver and penalize the crooked driver?

So far on this thread, the presumption has been that the Mojo or Solo or Noodle type ball is what they are talking about.  I don't use those regularly, but my impression of them has been that I hit them equal distance with my driver, and actually gain a bit of distance on irons because they don't spin off irons like premium balls do.  I'm not sure I see where the gain is there.

Anybody have any ideas as to a ball that maxes out at 105 mph swing speeds?  

[Bryan Izatt]

Bryan,

See Chapter 19 of How Golf Clubs Really Word and How to Optimize Their Designs by Frank D. Werner and Richard C. Greig. Absent that see R. D. Milne and J. P. Davis, "The role of the shaft in the golf swing", Journal of Biomechanics, Vol 129, No 9. p 975-983 (1992), or A. J. Cochran (ed), Science and Golf, Part 3 (E & FN Spon, London, 1990).

As for the True Temper web site, I can only attribute that to a disgraceful marketing attempt to take advantage of the whipping myth.

Garland,

Thanks for the references.  I think I'll get the first one next time I order from Amazon.

The Shaftlab is based on a physical 5 iron that a person swings at a real ball.  The shaft is fitted with strain guages that measure and transmit the bending of the shaft to a computer, which in turn creates the graphics for lead, lag, droop etc.  It is not a mathematical or physical model.  The data is what it is.  The shaft lags, then leads and droops just before impact in respect of some plane depending on the player's swing.  The lags, leads and droop are quite small in an absolute sense, but being a believer in measurable experiments, I believe they are there as presented by Shaftlab.  

I'm not sure I follow your "disgraceful marketing attempt" comment.  Do they claim there is a distance advantage to any shaft whipping that occurs?  Or do they even claim there is whipping?  And, how is it marketing.  The Shaftlab tells you as a consumer, how you bend a shaft in real life.  It doesn't say buy TT shafts for more length.  You can use the information to help in shaft selection from any manufacturer.

It seems to me that there are only three times when the head is not "going faster than the butt end of the shaft"; before the swing, after the swing, and the point where it stops to change direction.   In an angular speed sense that would be true.  The clubhead is at the end of of a lever encompassing the arms and shaft.  The further you go out the lever the greater the angular speed.  Assuming of course a rigid lever.   Therefore, essentially at any other time "the forward bend" occurs, and not just at "impact".  I think this is a leap of faith.  Are you saying that in all phases of the downswing that the shaft is bending forward at the head end? That the shaft is essentially trailing the head to a degree?  How would the head have got ahead of the shaft since the only forces acting on it are applied by the shaft?   This forward bend is caused by centrifugal force  A centrifugal force in this kind of situation is the force acting along the the length of the shaft outward from the pivot point of the swing along the shaft to the clubhead.  It's offset by the centripetal force acting in the opposite direction.  It is not at right angle to the shaft to cause leading or lagging.   and is highest near the point of impact (when the clubhead is traveling the fastest).    At some point in every swing, before impact, the hands release and start to decelerate.  That applies a force backward on the grip through the hands.  That retarding force (however small or large it is) is translated through the shaft to the head.  The momentum of the head causes a much larger forward force on the shaft at the tip end, consequently bending the shaft forward.  And, since there are downward forces in the swing and release and clubhead arc, there is also the so-called droop that happens near impact.  Now, if we had a high speed camera and a flexible enough shaft to accentuate the bend we might physically be able to see this.  The Shaftlab measures it through strain guages, but visual evidence is always more convincing.  

[Garland Bayley]

Bryan,

Here is what the shaftlab says. "The shaft also springs from a lagging to a leading state; this motion 'kicks' the ball at impact." You are right, they did not use the word whip in their discussion. Instead they claim what is essentially the definition of whipping. What they don't say is that any "kick" they might be able to measure with their high tech equipment will have essentially no effect on the golf shot, thereby allowing the whip myth to be further propagated. The effect that can be seen in the golf shots is the effect of the centrifugal force. So why are they talking about "kick". Perhaps because they think their customers would prefer to hear about kick than centrifugal force.

At my high tech company, the information put on the website is put there by the marketing people. Sometimes it is downright wrong, even after being told so by engineering. I suspect the same is going on at True Temper.

My apologies to those of you who tuned in to hear about the tournament ball.