Facts and Distance

[Bryan Izatt]

The real question:

It occured to me, after my last post, that maybe people ought to give their reasons for what they perceive the "distance problem" to be, or if it even exists at all for them (JohnK certainly doesn't seem to think there's a problem at all, for example).

For me personally there is no distance issue.  I've played the same course from the same 6600 yard tees for 15 years.  When I play away, which is often, I play courses from 6400 to 6600 yards where possible.  I'm longer now than then, but I certainly can't overpower the course, and my scores have improved somewhat because I have the opportunity to play more rather than any distance increases.  If I want to punish myself I can go back to the 7000 yard tees or the 7300 yard ones, but I don't do that often.  What's the point.  It's not fun.


For me, there are two real issues:

1) lengthening courses, both through stretching older classics and building newer unwalkable beasts; and

Lengthening old classic courses is regrettable, but not a real issue for me since I don't get to play them.  If the membership wants to do it to entertain the Tour, that's their decision.  They "own" it.  If I did play them it wouldn't be from the tips anyway, so pure lengthening wouldn't be an issue for me.  My course, now 15 years old, was one of the newer beasts I guess.  It can play up to 7300 yards.  It's no different from a walkability point of view than the 6600 yard tees.  In my opinion walkability is not so much a function of pure course length as it is the routing and the extent to which housing and topography dictate distance between holes.

2) re-establishing some choice into the game, some recognition of the old tortoise/hare question the old designers spoke of. The first is clear cut (at least I think it is), the second goes back to making the game more interesting and more entertaining, at least to me. I hate flogging and I hate aerial drop and stop golf, where the only real decision is which club to hit. I loved the Open at Shinnecock.

I'm not so sure that flogging and aerial golf is a function necessarily of new technology or especially the ball.  Perhaps, in the absence of the technological advances so many hate, Vijay and others might have still decided to flog.  I have a hard time believing that Vijay would stop flogging, if the ball was dialled back 25 yards and courses returned to 6900 yards.  Flogging is really a course management strategy.  They could certainly do it with balata balls and shorter (than now) courses.  Aerial golf seems to me to have resulted from American course design approaches rather than as a result of technology advances.  Who can we blame for target golf courses - Pete Dye and Sawgrass?  I am a much bigger fan of Scottish links courses than American aerial tour courses.  So many more options and unfair bounces and fun.  But, I wouldn't relate this issue to technolgoy.

[DMoriarty]

DM: We can talk about what degree of disproportionality we should be concerned with, but the meaning of "disproportonate" is what it is.  

I guess that was the point I was trying to address with you.  I took your previous comments on disproportionate to mean significantly large.  So, at what level of disproportionality do you think we should be concerned?    
. . .
 You have previously taken a position that there is disproportionality and implied that it is significant.  I just keep trying to understand what constitutes significant in your mind.

 I think we could be concerned when the game becomes out of balance (by which I mean the architecture no longer functioning well across a broad playing spectrum of abilities.) I know that is not what you are looking for but I just cannot put a number on it because I just don't have the data or the technical ability.  Since we are really dealing with not just one number but comparing a changing slope over a large speed spectrum, it is just too burdensome, complicated, and pointless to speculate on specifics without real numbers, and if I try I'll just be accused of making stuff up.  It is more of a feel thing from playing, watching, listening and reading about the game.  

If the USGA would give us the numbers I'd be glad to try and quantify it, but I wont hold my breath for the numbers.
______________________________
 Now, I'm confused again.  Are you saying the slow swinging recreational golfer has been left behind the high speed swinging recreational golfer?  Or the competitive amateur? or the pros?  As it relates to golfers fitting together on golf courses, shouldn't slow swing recreational players play the white tees.   Surely most people can fit most courses if they select the right tee blocks to play from.  

Yes, the slower swinging recreational golfers has been left behind by technology, compared to the high speed swinging recreational golfer.   Some top players with slower swings are being left behind as well, but I just dont care about them as much.  Probably petty jealousy.

As for choosing tees, you are making an assumption that doesnt always apply yet is always assumed in these discussions.  You suggest the shorter hitters move up, yet the shorter hitters are not necessarily worse golfers.  I can drive it out there with numerous low digit index players, yet they crush me every time.  If players of the similar overall abilities cannot enjoy the game from the same tees, then in my opinion, the game is out of balance.  Unfortunately I think we are at or past that point.  

Further, even multiple tees can only make up for so much of distance discrepency   The course on t.v. this weekend (around 7,500 yds I think)  has 122 tees for 18 holes.  That is almost seven tees per hole.  I do not think it is possible for architecture to work well from seven different tee boxes per hole.   This is no insult to the architect.  I doubt too many architects are good enough to build golf holes that work from what must be well over an average of 100 yards of tees per hole.  
_____________________________
I've never disputed that the V1x will go further than  a V1 or other higher spinning balls, for example, at optimal launch conditions for high speed swingers.  According to the Wishon Trajectory Software, a ball launched at the same ball speed and launch angle by a 110 mph swing, but, with 1000 rpms less spin  would gain 1 yard in carry distance.  I don't know what it would be at 130 mph.  

I know you havent ever actually disputed this, which is why I was surprised when you said that you didn't think the distance curves of many balls would actually cross.   If one ball performs better at high speeds and another ball performs better at low speeds, then their distance curves will necessarily cross at some point in between.  With the USGA stats we are looking at very similar balls, and even there we see at least two balls crossing paths.  

[DMoriarty]

Regarding your second point, not to keep carping on this, but, according to the USGA study from 2000-2005, and John V's comparison of 1995 to 2005, for the PGA Tour, there is no increasing distance gap between the slow and fast swingers.

I asked you this above, and I'll ask again, because I am very curious as to your answer.   What do you think of the methodology behind this small portion of the USGA's study?   Did they actually control for slow and fast swings?   Did they actually control for the level of technological advancements these golfers adopted?   What are the shortcomings of the methodology? What do you think the USGA actually proved?  

I would very much appreciate it if you would critique this portion of the USGA "study" as if it had been my handiwork, and not the USGA's.  Thanks.  
 

Re Augusta, are you referring to the increased length?  If so, how does that impact the members?  Surely they aren't foolish enough to play the Masters tees are they?  If you're referring to the second cut, is that kept in place for member play?  Is its impact significant?  Now, the trees may have a negative impact on the members.  Are they in play from the members tees?

I was more referring to  the narrowing of the tree corridors, the changes to some of the playing angles, and the rearranging of many of the sand traps.   I havent been there but based on Bob Crosby's insightful write-up from a few weeks ago, I' believe that these changes definitely have impacted the course from the members' tees.  

[TEPaul]

Quote from: Bryan Izatt on Yesterday at 07:07:57pm
Do you agree that 10 yards would be your definition of disproprtionate?  If there is as much as a 10 yard difference in 5 conforming modern Tour-played balls of similar construction, then would you not agree that disproportionate would need to be larger than that?

Response from David Moriarty;  
 
"Huh?  In the context of this discussion, I dont really consider "disproportionate" to be a subjective value term.  In terms of this discussion, a 1 yard net increase is disproportionate, 10 yards is disproportionate, 20 yards is disproportionate.  We can talk about what degree of disproportionality we should be concerned with, but the meaning of "disproportonate" is what it is."

Bryan:

Let me ask you something. Do you really want to carry on a discussion on this distance issue with a guy who says something like that?    

David Moriarty continues to say to Bryan Izatt;

"Ever since we first started discussing this stuff you keep trying to get me to commit to some specific distance disparity (usually 10 yards) with which we should be concerned.  Given the lack a complete data set, I just cant and wont throw out numbers."

Bryan:

Isn't that interesting? Here's a guy who's been complaining about a "distance problem", particularly in the context of a disproportionate distance gain of high swing speed players vs slow swing speed players; here we have a guy who creates his own "hypothetical" graphs and data to apparently show what a "disporportionate" gain in distance of high swing speed players vs slow swing speed players IS. And here we have a guy who now refuses to commit to any number at all that represents distance, much less what a "distance disparity" means to him?!  

Bryan, do you really want to continue to try to have a discussion with someone like that or someone who says things like this? I'm pretty sure you know as well as I do what constitutes a total waste of time.  

[TEPaul]

I guess I should expect another useless response but I suppose a reasonable thing to ask David Moriarty at this point is if he feels there was a disproportionate distance advantage for high swing speed players or some disporportionate "distance disparity" between high swing speed players and slow swing speed players during that time (probably pre-1995) when most all high swing speed players used high spin rate (soft balls) golf balls and most all low swing speed players used low spin rate (hard balls) golf balls?

[TEPaul]

Bryan Izatt said;

"Following is a quote from the Wishon golf site that addresses this point:

"Even though much has been said in the past year about the combination of higher launch angle, lower backspin and high ball velocity being the key to greater distance, TWGT research has also shown that this combination including a low spin rate is only right for golfers who are able to generate a ball speed of 155mph and higher (approx. swing speed of 105mph and above). For all other golfers with a ball velocity of less than 155 mph, MORE backspin will help increase distance, with the lower the ball speed, the more spin is required for optimization."  

Bryan:

I am not very technically minded but if that quotation from Wishon golf is factual in the world of golf I&B physics, do you not see at least a potentially interesting effect on distance production across the swing speed spectrum in that quotation?

In other words, could a ball speed of 155mph (a swing speed of 105mph) be some interesting "breaking point" in the world of golf I&B physics distance increase-wise when some factor of spin rate is applied?

Let's say a ball that reputedly spun as much as the old three piece balata (apparently app 3,000rpm) was the required MINIMUM spin rate a golf ball could have (assuming 3,000rpm is off a driver of a 105mph and above swing speed (155mph ball speed) player under fairly optimum conditions).

If this were true perhaps it is at that point when high swing speed players begin to generate that flight trajectory with the old high spin rate balls (app 3,000rpms) that is practically the opposite of distance enhancing.

If this were true it should also mean that slower swing speed players (104mph and below) should be using increasingly higher spin rate balls as swing speed decreases for optimum distance production for them. (It of course goes without saying that slower swing speed players never could generate enough swing speed anyway to produce that high swing peed trajectory that was basically the opposite of distance enhancing).

If all this is true it would also appear that pre-1995 both slow swingers and high swingers (above and below 105mph) were using golf balls that had almost precisely the opposite type of spin rate that was optimal for them distance-wise.

Why was that? How could that have been? The answer probably lies in the fact that they may not have been that aware of the specific distance meaning of this spin rate phenomenon or else they were simply looking for something else in the golf balls they used.

This may be true because there's little question that high spin rate balls were the only balls back then that felt soft (that better players required around the greens) while the low swing speed players (less good golfers) were basically looking for a ball that was cheaper and more durable against cutting etc (the low spinning hard ball) and they frankly really didn't notice or care much about the different performance characteristics around greens.

[Paul Payne]

This is an interesting discussion and a very interesting study.

What the USGA data show and what the Wishon site is alluding to is that fortunately for all of us, the current equipment speed/distance curve is beginning to flatten and will quickly flatten just beyond what is shown in the graph. This is because wind resistance (air density and drag) are overcomming any continuing advantage with club head speed alone.

The USGA study also indicates that the swing speed increases do not show a clear advantage UNDER THE SAME TEST CONDITIONS. What this means is that adjustments must be made to capitalize on any improvements. This would mean specifically adjusting the COR to offset the deminished COR at higher swing speeds. This is of course against rules now because any adjustment such as this would test above the allowable COR in a static test.

The other adjustment that can be made is to increase the launch angle to compensate for the reduced launch angle and increased spin at higher swing speeds. This could produce the results of longer distance but I think what the USGA is saying (although not directly) is that this would be considered an equipment change and not an attribute related directly to the ball.

Remember, the problem statement was to prove whether the new ball created an advantage at higher swing speeds. To prove this it must be done under the same conditions.

The most interesting part of this report to me was the fact that we may be seeing the horizon on equipment advantages period. (Excluding the truly revolutionary and hotly debated things that come around every few decades or so) It appears that it will be more and more difficult to overcome the forces of air resistance if developments follow their current course.

Aside from the obvious fact that current solid core balls have made a huge difference in distance over the old wound balls, the clubhouse bar talk of additional advantages for the pros seems to be debunked here. Chalk another up to "urban legend"?

Cheers.
 

 

[Bryan Izatt]

David,

As for choosing tees, you are making an assumption that doesnt always apply yet is always assumed in these discussions.  You suggest the shorter hitters move up, yet the shorter hitters are not necessarily worse golfers.  I can drive it out there with numerous low digit index players, yet they crush me every time.  If players of the similar overall abilities cannot enjoy the game from the same tees, then in my opinion, the game is out of balance.  Unfortunately I think we are at or past that point.

I agree short hitters are not necessarily worse golfers. I play on and off with a guy who's a few years older than me, but a whole lot shorter (260 vs 220 off the tee).  His index is a stroke or two better than mine.  He regularly beats me from the same tees, because he can get up and down from anywhere, and he expects to make putts from anywhere on the green.  My strength is length, his is short game.  We play from the same tees.  He beats me.  He seems to have fun.  I don't see how this is out of balance.  If we played a shorter version of the course would it make any difference to our competitiveness?  I don't think so.  If we used balls that brought our relative distance closer together and played a shorter course, would it be equally competitive?  Nope, he'd probably kill me.  Where's the fairness in that.  I have one skill, he has another.  How would you fairly decide which one trumps the other.

I know you havent ever actually disputed this, which is why I was surprised when you said that you didn't think the distance curves of many balls would actually cross.  If one ball performs better at high speeds and another ball performs better at low speeds, then their distance curves will necessarily cross at some point in between.  With the USGA stats we are looking at very similar balls, and even there we see at least two balls crossing paths.

It's possible they could cross.  You must have better eyes than mine to see a crossing in the USGA data.

For your consideration, let's hypothesize that we could create a composite line that is based on the optimal ball and launch conditions at each swing speed.  For example you believe a Lady Precept would go further than a V1x at 85 mph swing speed and conversely the V1x goes further at 125 mph.  If we found the optimal ball and launch condition for each mph across the spectrum, what do you suppose the curve would look like.  I'd hypothesize that it is an elongated S.  The bottom would be slighty flattened as would the top (matching the USGA charts).  Now, the question is, if we rolled back the ball as many want to do around here, how would you change that S curve.  Would you flatten the top of the S more to bring the long hitters back more to centre?  Would you steepen the bottom part to make it more linear? Or would you make it linear with a flattened slope?  Which would be the fairest?  What are your criteria in determinig what's fair?

I asked you this above, and I'll ask again, because I am very curious as to your answer.  What do you think of the methodology behind this small portion of the USGA's study?  Did they actually control for slow and fast swings?  Did they actually control for the level of technological advancements these golfers adopted?  What are the shortcomings of the methodology? What do you think the USGA actually proved?

I don't recall you asked before, but here goes.  The USGA study's main point was to address the question of whether a modern tour ball went disproportionately further at higher swing speeds.  Their study methodology to address that point looks fine to me.

The methodology does not address your point of how much further a modern tour ball goes at high speed than another ball might go at lower speeds.

In terms of their comparison of Tour distances from 2000 to 2005, the methodology does not control for the variables that are likely involved.  What the results indicate is the difference that all technology changes and player changes and agronomy changes and weather changes made to overall distance in that time frame.  In respect of swing speed, did they control for that?  Not scientifically, unless they measured the swing speeds of the involved players in the two time periods.  I'm guessing they didn't. However, if you look at the graph it clearly states that it is distance gain vs "distance rank".  In that context of distance rank they controlled.  So, in that context the data and conclusion are valid.

The problem I have with many of your hypotheses and statements and assertions is that they are generic in nature and emotive in tone.  That is why I keep digging in to try to focus your hypotheses.  Then we can assess whether your data or anybody elses is controlled enough to support or disprove the hypotheses.

[Bryan Izatt]

TEP,

Bryan, do you really want to continue to try to have a discussion with someone like that or someone who says things like this? I'm pretty sure you know as well as I do what constitutes a total waste of time.  

I know, I know.  But it's cold and rainy here.  And I've been recovering from surgery the last few days, so this discussion helps to keep my mind active.  And, I do see some movement in David's position.

[Bryan Izatt]

TEP,

If all this is true it would also appear that pre-1995 both slow swingers and high swingers (above and below 105mph) were using golf balls that had almost precisely the opposite type of spin rate that was optimal for them distance-wise.

Why was that? How could that have been? The answer probably lies in the fact that they may not have been that aware of the specific distance meaning of this spin rate phenomenon or else they were simply looking for something else in the golf balls they used.

This may be true because there's little question that high spin rate balls were the only balls back then that felt soft (that better players required around the greens) while the low swing speed players (less good golfers) were basically looking for a ball that was cheaper and more durable against cutting etc (the low spinning hard ball) and they frankly really didn't notice or care much about the different performance characteristics around greens.

I believe the whole phenomenon of optimization is fairly recent - certainly post 1995 for the masses.  So, I'd guess that there wasn't a whole lot of intelligent analysis in those days.

It'd be hard to say that the Pinnacle was the wrong ball for the average (not necessarily slower) swinger from a driving perspective.  It was definitely wrong from a softness/spinning ability around the greens.

I don't have any data on what the spin rate was with the equipment of that day. And optimizing spin relates to increasing carry distance.  So the spin rate may have been sufficient.  Roll out distance is better with the lower spinning balls.  So, overall distance might still have been an improvement over balata balls, but still not optimal.  The current optimization craze is about optimizing carry distance, not necessarily rollout distance, by the way.

I believe in those days most amateurs who played Pinnacles did so for price, durability and maybe distance third.  

[TEPaul]

"It'd be hard to say that the Pinnacle was the wrong ball for the average (not necessarily slower) swinger from a driving perspective."  

Bryan:

But that seems to be precisely what Wishon Golf is saying in that quotation from them you offered above. They seem to be saying one technical or physics method of enhancing distance of progressively slower swingers (below 105mph) is with higher rather than lower spin rate. I have no idea if that's true or not. To be honest, that's the first time I've ever heard some tech people say that. But one of the reasons may be because I never thought to ask that question specifically.

Or did I? Perhaps I did without exactly knowing it. I think I recall the USGA Tech Center telling me that if a regulation was placed on the MINIMUM amout of spin rate a golf ball could have (That was my question as to what that would mean regarding excessive distance) that that would not necessarily negatively effect lower swing speed players distance-wise although it almost certainly would negatively effect very high swing speed players.

"I don't have any data on what the spin rate was with the equipment of that day."

May be you don't but I believe the USGA certainly does. It could be something like 3,000 rpms vs 2,000 rpms. At least that number was mentioned at one point during my conversations. To me that's a big difference or should make a big difference, I would think.

Although they have never actually regulated the spin rate of golf balls I believe they have monitored the spin rate of golf balls for years. (and that may've been the very thing that promoted me to ask about spin rate in the first place when we were standing next to the Initial Velocity Test machine around which the issue of spin rate must have been mentioned. BTW, Initial Velocity is one of the five factors the USGA has regulated for years).

[DMoriarty]

would also appear that pre-1995 both slow swingers and high swingers (above and below 105mph) were using golf balls that had almost precisely the opposite type of spin rate that was optimal for them distance-wise.

Why was that? How could that have been? The answer probably lies in the fact that they may not have been that aware of the specific distance meaning of this spin rate phenomenon or else they were simply looking for something else in the golf balls they used.

This may be true because there's little question that high spin rate balls were the only balls back then that felt soft (that better players required around the greens) while the low swing speed players (less good golfers) were basically looking for a ball that was cheaper and more durable against cutting etc (the low spinning hard ball) and they frankly really didn't notice or care much about the different performance characteristics around greens.

TEPaul, All of this should be of no surprise to you, as some of us have been saying exactly this for some time now.  As opposed to rehashing the same ground here, perhaps you should go back and reread some of the old distance threads where we discussed this at length.  

For example in the "Ruination" thread, a few posters (including me) made this exact point.   In fact here is one of our exchanges:

DMoriarty said:

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

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

I dont understand why this is such a sticking point for you. . . .

Excerpts from TEPaul's response:

I'll tell you precisely why it's a sticking point with me. It's because I believe it is total horseshit and I don't care what that Titleist website says about spin rate, drag, lift, trajectory, carry distance, roll or whatever.
. . .
If you feel like telling me I must have been seeing things for twenty years or that I'm not telling the truth----then fine---in that case this discussion on this subject between you and me is over.

By the way Tom, I was looking at the charts in the USGA technical report and observing that there may be as much as 10 yards distance difference between some of the balls.  Which of these balls' distance curves most closely represents that of the old Pinnacle, which you have repeatedly and vehemently claimed would have had essentially the same distance curve as the modern distance ball?
________________________

Bryan said:

I agree short hitters are not necessarily worse golfers. I play on and off with a guy who's a few years older than me, but a whole lot shorter (260 vs 220 off the tee).  His index is a stroke or two better than mine.  He regularly beats me from the same tees, because he can get up and down from anywhere, and he expects to make putts from anywhere on the green.  My strength is length, his is short game.  We play from the same tees.  He beats me.  He seems to have fun.  I don't see how this is out of balance.  If we played a shorter version of the course would it make any difference to our competitiveness?  I don't think so.  If we used balls that brought our relative distance closer together and played a shorter course, would it be equally competitive?  Nope, he'd probably kill me.  Where's the fairness in that.  I have one skill, he has another.  How would you fairly decide which one trumps the other.

Fairness?  I dont care about fairness.  I care about how well the golf course architecture works across the spectrum of swing speeds.  

It's possible they could cross.  You must have better eyes than mine to see a crossing in the USGA data.

They do cross.  Take another look at the chart on page 7.

For your consideration, let's hypothesize that we could create a composite line that is based on the optimal ball and launch conditions at each swing speed.  For example you believe a Lady Precept would go further than a V1x at 85 mph swing speed and conversely the V1x goes further at 125 mph.  If we found the optimal ball and launch condition for each mph across the spectrum, what do you suppose the curve would look like.  I'd hypothesize that it is an elongated S.  The bottom would be slighty flattened as would the top (matching the USGA charts).

I think the curve would consist of a number of segments from the curves of different balls, and that the general trend would be from flatter to steeper, so that the distance benefit increases as swing speed increase. The individual segments (including the last/top one) might have a diminishing slope curve, but overall the slope would be steepening.  

I've been considering just such issue and planned to ask you the same question.

Now, the question is, if we rolled back the ball as many want to do around here, how would you change that S curve.  Would you flatten the top of the S more to bring the long hitters back more to centre?  Would you steepen the bottom part to make it more linear? Or would you make it linear with a flattened slope?  Which would be the fairest?  What are your criteria in determinig what's fair?

I'd lower the top end and get rid of the increasing slope so the slope was more consistent throughout.   I'd base this on looking at the great architecture and looking on past proportions of long and short swingers to see what worked best.  

I dont give a hoot which would be fairer as long as it worked with the architecture.  

I dont want to get sidetracked so I'll address the rest of your post at a later time.  Thank you for answering my question.  

DM

[TEPaul]

David Moriarty:

If you want to delve back into the deep back pages and pat yourself on the back by proving me wrong on some point then please be my guest. That seems to be your intention with me on these threads anyway.

You most certainly did say that slow swingers are benefited distance-wise by higher spinning golf balls. As I recall that's what came from the Titleist web-site, and now the Wishon Golf website. My point with you on that response, however, was at the other end of the spectrum higher speed swingers using high spin rate golf balls were getting deleterious results distance-wise for so many years. High swing speed players almost exlusively used to use high spin rate golf balls.

I kept mentioning that to you because you seem to think that when they finally switched en masse to a lower spinning ball that was NOT deleterious to them distance-wise you kept maintaining that the higher swing speed players got some disproportionate and unfair distance advantage compared to other lower swing speed players.

For the life of me I just can't understand how you think that high swing speed players are getting some unfair advantage when basically EVERYONE (slow and high swing speed players alike) began using a much lower spin rate ball? If everyone is basically using a low spin rate golf ball or even the same kind of golf ball spin rate-wise for the first time after all these years I just can't see why you think high swing speed players got some big advantage all of a sudden compared to the rest. To me that would basically be bringing all swing speeds back into a logical AND FAIR progression distance-wise.

Or so I thought because I'd always assumed that low swing speed players were never effected deleteriously distance-wise by low spin rate golf balls. That would certainly appear to be what all low swing speed players thought too because they always used low spin rate golf balls (the "rock" or two piece solid core ball). Matter of fact, slow swing speed players still are using low spin rate balls.

[TEPaul]

David Moriarty:

To follow up on that thread above about high and low spin rate golf balls, I became aware a couple of years ago from the USGA Tech Center just how and why high swing speed players were negatively effected distance-wise by high spin rate golf balls.

That's when I first thought of the idea that putting a new regulation (a sixth regulation) on the MINIMUM amount of spin rate a golf ball could have would be a way of effectively stopping and even rollbacking the excessive distances high swing speed players have been hitting the ball in the last ten or so years (By the way, the R&A/USGA has never regulated a golf ball's spin rate).

That would solve the distance problem with the high swing speed player. But I thought like apparently almost everyone else did that if a regulation was put on the MINIMUM amount of spin rate a golf ball could have that that would hurt all golfers distance-wise as much or more than it would the high swing speed player.

And then I asked the USGA Tech Center again if a higher spin rate regulation on golf balls would commensurately hurt lower swing speed players distance-wise. They basically said no. So to me that made implimenting a MINIMUM spin rate regulation even better.

I just frankly never thought that if the spin rate was increased progressively as the swing speed decreased that that would actually benefit the distance of low swing speed players.

So, now understanding that I can't imagine how putting a MINIMUM spin rate regulation on the golf ball could NOT be the perfect answer to both the excessive distance problem with high swing speed players today as well as the increased disparity in distance between players at either end of the swing speed spectrum.

But the thing that really blows my mind is how almost all low swing speed players all these years have assumed that those low spinning rocks like the two piece hard core ball was helping them distance-wise because I can pretty much guarantee you that's what they all thought.

[Bryan Izatt]

Fairness?  I dont care about fairness.  I care about how well the golf course architecture works across the spectrum of swing speeds.  

David, that's a good one.  I think the part I've highlighted should be your new signature line - forget the Dan Pohl thing.

I think you will never get your wish that an architecture will work across a whole spectrum of swing speeds.  There will always be(and have always been) players that can carry a hazard, or fly a bunker, or cut a corner, or hit a high, long, soft landing shot that will defeat architectural features that will impact shorter players. Unless you can legislate balls that fly further for slow swingers and shorter for fast swingers, i.e. a ball that goes the same distance (or thereabouts) no matter how hard you hit it.  I suppose there's no use in me saying, where's the fairness in that.

It's possible they could cross.  You must have better eyes than mine to see a crossing in the USGA data.

They do cross.  Take another look at the chart on page 7.

I forgot that I could enlarge the Acrobat file.  Yes, I see that ball C crosses ball A below 100 mph.  One point for you. Personally I'd like to know what Ball B is.  It's longer across the spectrum than any of the others.  And keep me away from Ball D, it's 10 yards shorter at my swing speed.  I bet the manufacturers would be aghast and in lawsuit mood if the answers as to which ball is which ever came out.  Who's got the lousy designer?

For your consideration, let's hypothesize that we could create a composite line that is based on the optimal ball and launch conditions at each swing speed.  For example you believe a Lady Precept would go further than a V1x at 85 mph swing speed and conversely the V1x goes further at 125 mph.  If we found the optimal ball and launch condition for each mph across the spectrum, what do you suppose the curve would look like.  I'd hypothesize that it is an elongated S.  The bottom would be slighty flattened as would the top (matching the USGA charts).

I think the curve would consist of a number of segments from the curves of different balls, and that the general trend would be from flatter to steeper, so that the distance benefit increases as swing speed increase. The individual segments (including the last/top one) might have a diminishing slope curve, but overall the slope would be steepening.  

I've been considering just such issue and planned to ask you the same question.

I was thinking 1 mph segments which would make the line fairly smooth, but segmented it is.  It sounds like you see it the same way I do, but I'm not sure.  

Now, the question is, if we rolled back the ball as many want to do around here, how would you change that S curve.  Would you flatten the top of the S more to bring the long hitters back more to centre?  Would you steepen the bottom part to make it more linear? Or would you make it linear with a flattened slope?  Which would be the fairest?  What are your criteria in determinig what's fair?

I'd lower the top end and get rid of the increasing slope so the slope was more consistent throughout.   I'd base this on looking at the great architecture and looking on past proportions of long and short swingers to see what worked best.

If you had time, you could draw a hypothetical chart so we could agree or disagree. If you see the bottom end as flattish, but with some slope, and the USGA shows the top end as flattening a little bit, do you see the slope at the bottom end as being the same as the slope at the top end.  For arguments sake, if the bottom end was 1 yard per MPH, and the middle was 2 yards per MPH, would you see the top end as 1 yard per MPH?  Or do you really want a linear line that has a constant slope of 1 yard per mph (200 at 80 mph vs 250 at 130 MPH)?  We've got to help the USGA here in what the target criteria should be, although we're not likely to agree.  

I dont give a hoot which would be fairer as long as it worked with the architecture.

I've lost track of your golfing background.  Do you play only to manage your way around the architecture of a course? Is success of a round to you, your ability to manage your game to avoid the hazards and plot your way around the course according to your interpretation of the design intent of the architect?  What do you do when the design intent is defeated by weather conditions?  Do you play in competition - against friends and buddies informally or in formal tournaments?  Do you not want that competition to be fair?  Is not golf always competition, against somebody or against the course and par?

I dont want to get sidetracked so I'll address the rest of your post at a later time.  Thank you for answering my question.  

DM

[Garland Bayley]

Since it's raining and you guys have nothing better to do, perhaps one of you can tell me whether the following that appeared as a comment on Geoff's website is reasonable.

" Um, just breezed through it, but this report is seriously flawed."

"The launch angle people typically aim for is about 15-16 degrees, not 9-10. At such a low launch angle, the ball will land too early. This test seems to assume people are aiming at hitting the ball using only the loft of the clubhead, not on a tee and at an ascending angle."

"Quick cut and paste from the folks at Bombsquad:
Clubhead speed/launch angle/spin (ideal)
100mph 16-18.5 3900-4200
110mph 15.5-17.5 3800-4050
120mph 15-17 3750-3900
130mph 14-16 3500-3800
140mph 13-15 3300-3550
150mph 12.5-14 3000-3300
160mph 12-13.5 2750-3200
170mph 11-12 2500-2700"

"Another thing: I just blew through it, not reading every last word, but I don't remember seeing too much about ball construction. If anyone found this, let me know. They say "use on PGA tour", but they use a variety of balls."

"Naturally, they are not going to say whose was used, but anyone reading this report and looking to make sense of it would need to know ball construction, material hardness, etc, before it made any sense. We don't know if the USGA testers used balls that would produce these results, or if they did, in fact, go out and find a variety of balls with greatly differing constructions."

"Last: could not get relyable test results at 130mph and over? Sorry, cop out. The guys at the top end of the driving spectrum hit it at 130mph plus. The long drive guys are getting upward of 150."

"I fear if this was a grad student, his prof would be wearing a frown right now..."

[Bryan Izatt]

So, now understanding that I can't imagine how putting a MINIMUM spin rate regulation on the golf ball could NOT be the perfect answer to both the excessive distance problem with high swing speed players today as well as the increased disparity in distance between players at either end of the swing speed spectrum.

Have you crossed to the other side?  Are you now accepting that there is an increased disparity in distance between players at either end of the swing speed spectrum?    

Here's one way that establishing a minimum spin rate wouldn't work.  You could ask your USGA contacts about it.  They would have to set the minimum rate (let's say 3000 rpm, and then they'd have to establish the baseline conditions for measuring it.  What club?  What club head loft? What dynamic launch angle (the loft of the club + the angle of attack)? What swing speed?  Then after all balls are tested and approved it becomes clear that if you swing at a different speed than the test condition you can impart a different spin.  So, you need a minimum spin rate for each swing speed.  Presumably the same for all swing speeds (except for unfair Moriarty).  Then players would optimize in a different fashion than they do today.  Today the use higher loft drivers and low spin balls to get high flat low spinning trajectories.  Tomorrow they would opt for lower loft drivers played further forward in their stance to create a positive angle of attack to launch the ball higher than the stated loft of the club.  The lower loft driver would impart less spin to the ball but the positive angle of attack would launch it higher.  We could be back to where we are now. I think the distance regulation is going to be much more complicated than we think.  

But the thing that really blows my mind is how almost all low swing speed players all these years have assumed that those low spinning rocks like the two piece hard core ball was helping them distance-wise because I can pretty much guarantee you that's what they all thought.

And they were probably right that they got more distance.  Total distance depends on roll too.  Low spin balls run further after landing, so they might have seen that.  Also the distance a ball carries depends on more than just the spin.  Perhaps the dimpling on the Pinnacles helped more than the lower spin hurt.  Also the Pinnacle was a 2 piece ball with a solid core.  The Tileist balata was wound with a small liquid filled rubber ball in the centre.  I think that the compression/restitution of the 2 piece balls was significantly better than that of the wound balls, leading to a higher ball speed for a given club speed.  A higher so-called smash factor.  The manufacturers have not only modified spin rate, but also the core and the aerodynamics on the modern ball.  I'm sure that the core of the Pinnacle contributed to its improvement in length over wound balls.  The trick with the V1's of the world is that they figured out how to use the high velocity cores with soft, sturdy covers, and mantle layers of different materials to impart different spin characteristics with diiferent clubs.  They don't have all those PhD's working for mothing.  I'm sure most of us here feel that we could make a fair pass at designing a golf course, but I'd bet there's nobody here who could design a golf ball.

[Garland Bayley]

Also, there is this bit on Geoff's homepage that some crackpot came up with you guys might be interested in picking apart.

"I've only skimmed it (I see equations on page 1, eh), but reader G. Bayley writes:"

    The paper starts by giving trajectory formulae, but then never uses or references them again. The paper gives references to experiments showing that COR declines with higher swing speed. The largest portion of the paper then replicates this result with five unidentified tour balls. A clear explanation of the previous results would have been enough for me, why replicate an accepted result. Is that doing science? This replication is the first of three results claimed. The second result being that launch angle decreases with increased swing speed. It is totally unclear as to how this came about. The final result claimed was the astounding (satire) result that ball spin rate increases with increasing club speed.

    In an appendix, tour driving distance is charted for distance ranges and implicated to agree with the COR result. Since this data has no controls, no reasonable assumption as to what it correlates to can be made and is of little scientific value. Also, the paper claimed that 2000 data was from pros using wound balls, but a graph on the Titleist website would seem to indicate that at the beginning of 2000 27% of the tour players were using the modern ball and by the end of the year 42% were using the modern ball.

    The article could stand a little better writing given that it was referenced as the lead item on the USGA home page. For example, I would appreciate it if someone could explain what the following means, "some specification had to be made in how the ball would be positioned on the tee. The tee position was first set at the highest speed in accordance with the ODS" which gives me visions of a tee streaking through space with a ball sitting on it. Perhaps it has no meaning and is just poor writing.

    What I would have liked to see was graphs of ball trajectory predicted by the equations that were presented and then ignored, and graphs of ball trajectory as seen in experiments with balls. I would also like to have seen what the model would predict for older balls.

[TEPaul]

"I think you will never get your wish that an architecture will work across a whole spectrum of swing speeds.  There will always be(and have always been) players that can carry a hazard, or fly a bunker, or cut a corner, or hit a high, long, soft landing shot that will defeat architectural features that will impact shorter players. Unless you can legislate balls that fly further for slow swingers and shorter for fast swingers, i.e. a ball that goes the same distance (or thereabouts) no matter how hard you hit it.  I suppose there's no use in me saying, where's the fairness in that."

Bryan:

It has occured to me that is what David Moriarty may be driving at on all these threads about distance. But the prospect of that is so perposterous I haven't mentioned it as yet.

The true irony is the USGA Tech Center in their $10 mil ball study begun in 2002 just may've looked into the possiblility of that (only in a technical sense that is). If the regulatory bodies ever entertained doing something that foolish (in a rules and regs context) I really do feel it would be the total ruination of the game of golf.

[Bryan Izatt]

Garland,

I can't see the comment you're quoting on Geoff's site.  The only one I see there is yours.  Who was the poster?  What were his credentials?  Are you espousing these as your opinions?  If so I'd debate them with you.

Two points though - his table from bomb squad is erroneous.  The first column is ball speed, I believe, not club head speed.

The writer of the USGA article was a PhD - so I doubt that he is a grad student anymore or has a prof to frown on him.

[TEPaul]

"Have you crossed to the other side?  Are you now accepting that there is an increased disparity in distance between players at either end of the swing speed spectrum?"

Bryan:

No, I certainly have not crossed to the other side. Disparity in driving distance across the swing speed spectrum is not a concern of mine and I don't think it should be a concern period.

What concerns me is that the elite player and high swing speed player today is just hitting the ball too far for too many golf courses and that's creating a far bigger problem than it probably should be.

I feel a NEW regulation on spin rate----something the R&A/USGA has never done before should be considered and obviously it would be particularly effective in controlling or rolling back distance for the high swing speed player only if a MINIMUM spin rate regulation was adopted.

The additional good news is technically it would not effect the distance of low swing speed players (like it would high swing speed players) as everyone seemed to think---even if most all low swing speed players obviously have no real idea what type of spin rate would be best for them distance-wise.  

Let's just say there is a ton of irony in all this both in the past and still today.  

Having said all that I have no idea at all if the regulatory bodies are considering a new regulation on the MINIMUM amount of spin rate a golf ball could have. I am not unaware of the fact that if they did that they would be rendering as "non-conforming" most all golf balls in use today. If they did something like that they would have to bring the regulation in over a period of years just as they did with the old small ball and the large ball.

But as for David Moriarty's apparent point, I just think that is making a mountain out of a molehill or a tempest in a teapot in the extreme.

[Bryan Izatt]

Also, there is this bit on Geoff's homepage that some crackpot    You should be easier on yourself   came up with you guys might be interested in picking apart.

"I've only skimmed it (I see equations on page 1, eh   Good to see that Geoff understands his limitations on the subject   ), but reader G. Bayley writes:"

    The paper starts by giving trajectory formulae, but then never uses or references them again. The paper gives references to experiments showing that COR declines with higher swing speed. The largest portion of the paper then replicates this result with five unidentified tour balls. A clear explanation of the previous results would have been enough for me, why replicate an accepted result. Is that doing science? This replication is the first of three results claimed. The second result being that launch angle decreases with increased swing speed. It is totally unclear as to how this came about. The final result claimed was the astounding (satire) result that ball spin rate increases with increasing club speed.

I'm not sure I get your point above.  There were three results he wanted to report from the study, and he did.  Why is that replication?

    In an appendix, tour driving distance is charted for distance ranges and implicated to agree with the COR result. Since this data has no controls, no reasonable assumption as to what it correlates to can be made and is of little scientific value. Also, the paper claimed that 2000 data was from pros using wound balls, but a graph on the Titleist website would seem to indicate that at the beginning of 2000 27% of the tour players were using the modern ball and by the end of the year 42% were using the modern ball.

We've already agreed that the PGA stats are flawed if the intent was to show only the difference in distance created by balls in that time period.  That doesn't invalidate the primary conclusion that there is no disproportionate distance gain in modern tour balls for high speed swingers.

    The article could stand a little better writing given that it was referenced as the lead item on the USGA home page. For example, I would appreciate it if someone could explain what the following means, "some specification had to be made in how the ball would be positioned on the tee. The tee position was first set at the highest speed in accordance with the ODS" which gives me visions of a tee streaking through space with a ball sitting on it. Perhaps it has no meaning and is just poor writing.

I assume it has meaning to those people who understand the baseline specifications for the ODS.  I would infer that the tee needs to be set at a certain height and position forward or back to achieve the ODS standard at a given swing speed.  He did explain in follow up why he needed to be concerned about tee height and position.  You're being a little too critical here I think.  Who ever said that PhD's should necessarily be good writers.  Maybe English wasn't one of his majors.

   What I would have liked to see was graphs of ball trajectory predicted by the equations that were presented and then ignored, and graphs of ball trajectory as seen in experiments with balls. I would also like to have seen what the model would predict for older balls.

The USGA hypothesized one question, and then answered it.  You, and others, have other questions.  Why don't you ask them.  Maybe they'd do what you request.  What would be the point of graphing the equations vs the experimental results?  The experimental results are reality; formulas are generally mathematical simplifications of the reality.

[Eckstein]

This thread gives me a headache.

Bryan
Have you ever made a post on golf course architecture or are you all about equipment and technology?

Ran needs to do a better job screening.

[TEPaul]

I think some of you dudes should probably check out of GolfClubatlas.com or even any golf website and get yourselves over to some website that deals strictly in science and the processes of scientific testing methods.

If any of you want technical info on the physics of golf balls and golf clubs (not policy opinions on what the R&A/USGA may do in I&B in the future) I suggest you all just call the Tech Center up and ask them.

Some of you guys are acting like there is no USGA Tech Center nor was there ever one and that the world needs your "hypotheticals", graphs, and testing methods to even begin to understand and collect information and data on any of this stuff.

Frankly, it's becoming comical. Some of you guys seem to be frustrated scientists as much as Patrick Mucci is a frustrated courtroom lawyer.  

Eckstein:

Like you, maybe all this technical stuff is giving me a headache too but it seems to me Bryan Izatt is by far and away the best and most credible tech minded guy we have on this website and that's a very good thing, in my book. It lends some credibiltiy to this website on these kinds of threads. I'm just glad I'm not the only one who's calling into question some of these guys' convoluted assumptions, premises and conclusions on this distance issue.  

[Eckstein]

 "but it seems to me Bryan Izatt is by far and away the best and most credible tech minded guy we have on this website"

TEP
 Great. Its too bad he can't find a tech website. We need more contributors who are interested in golf course architecture.