Ohio Golf Assoc. one ball - new info

[Doug Siebert]

While watching the PGA final round I was struck by the visible difference in swing speed between Luke and Tiger.  I measured their downswing time in slo-mo and Tiger was more than 20% faster.  Suggests that Tiger should be 20% longer - which is just about right in their respective distances.

Maybe you should try that slo-mo "downswing time" test with Els or Couples before you suggest that it has any correlation with distance.  Its how fast the club is moving at impact that matters, not how fast you get it from the top to the ball.

Tiger's got a quick tempo and hits more shots at absolutely 100% effort than anyone I've ever seen other than 8 year olds on the driving range who end up on their butt every third shot.  But that's not the only way to generate clubhead speed, some guys manage to look lazy but get that club moving quickly when it counts.

Could there be another angle to this?  If you roll back the ball now, what do you do in another 10-15 years when the bigger fitter players are swinging the very newest technology drivers at 140mph?

Tony,

That is only a problem if you assume that where we're at now is the result of "bigger fitter players" and not technology changes.  If you rein in the technology to push things back even 10 years ago ball-wise, you'd solve most of the problem.  If someone invents a driver that a guy who swings at 125 mph can swing at 140 mph then probably whatever it is about that driver that permits that should be outlawed.

[Bryan Izatt]

Doug,

Point taken re the downswing time.  There is certainly not a precise correlation betwen the downswing time and clubhead speed at impact.  It's still indicative though, I think.  Unfortunately I deleted the recording and therefore can't time Els.  I'm not sure they showed a drive of his anyway.

My point was that some players have higher speed at impact that was visually obvious (and was supported by my rudimentary measurement).  My feeling is that the difference in distance achieved should be proportional to the difference in swing speed.  According to a USGA paper that is not the case now with premium balls - the high swing speed players already suffer a small distance penalty compared to their proportional speed increase.  To increase that penalty is, in some way deskilling the game (assuming you consider relative swing speed a skill).

Regarding Tony's comments, the increase in swing speed over the last ten years is due as much to driver technology as fitness I think.  The perfection of lightweight graphite shafts and the lengthening of driver shafts from 43 to 45 or 46 inches has certainly contributed to swing speed increases.  From anecdotal observation over the last 40 years, I'd say more players swing out of their shoes today than did 40 years ago.  Again the shaft and head technology enable them to be more successful doing that.  Re 140 mph swings, I wouldn't be surprised if Holmes and Watson, et al are getting there already.  Just wait for the 30 gram nanotube shaft at 46" to become the standard.

The USGA say they are looking at all these factors as well as the ball.  Good for them, especially if they act.  Focusing on the ball, and its spin alone, will only be a stop-gap at best.  

One solution, set an ODS above the range of current swing speeds, say 150.  Regulate that balls must perform linearly up to that swing speed.  Regulate the slope of the line to 3 yards (for example) per mph increase.  Throw it over the fence to the manufacturers as to how to do it over some time period.  Trying to regulate specific characteristics or features of balls is always going to be a losing proposition.  The manufacturers will find a way to overcome feature regulation (like spin rate).

From the two report backs so far, we seem to have a ball that has no effect on medium driver swing speeds; negates any distance increase above that medium swing speed; goes further on iron shots; and spins less around the green.  Sounds like an artificial (in Garland's terminology) ball to me.  Is this really what the classic course preservationists want?  

[Doug Siebert]

Brian,

Would reducing the correlation between swing speed and driving distance still be deskilling the game if it that was the effect of changing things back to the way they were in 1985 or 1995?  Or would you say the Pro V1 just corrects a defect in the game that has existed since its inception to now allow near linear correlation between swing speed and driving distance?

Back to my post of a few days ago where I pointed out that I don't ever remember anyone carrying a drive further than me -- upon rereading I kind of lost my point in that paragraph so it sounded more like bragging, but my point was while today carry distance is pretty much the determining factor in driving distance at higher (say 100+ mph) swing speeds, that was certainly not the case in the past.  I wasn't ever out-carried, but I was outdriven.  In the right conditions I'd guess that a player with the ideal technique versus my shall we say less than optimal launch for yesterday's equipment could drive it as far as me with 15 mph less swing speed.  I was always annoyed that I was as long or longer than the pros with my irons but I couldn't drive it like they could.  Why?  Lack of skill, crappy technique, call it what you want.  Now my iron distance and driving distance are better balanced (though more towards the lower end of where today's pros hit it based on Tiger's 250 yard 3 irons )  But it wasn't skill that caused that, it was technology.

Today that same 15 mph difference is what, 40 yards?  With everyone launching high all-carry drives, things are perhaps more 'fair' to some because swing speed has a better correlation with driving distance, but it has definitely deskilled the game because driving technique matters little now.  Just get the right ball and correct driver loft for your swing speed and natural launch tendencies, and you are golden.  No messy business using skill and hours of practice to refine your swing to allow you to get that "pro trajectory" driver launch, optionally with a nice little draw to get some extra run out.

If things are changed such that going from 100 to 110 mph gets you for example 25 yards more, going to 120 gets you 20 more and going to 130 gets you 10 more, why is that necessarily bad?  If the reason is merely that the ball is spinning too much off the driver, the golfer is free to attempt to alter his swing in such a way as to reduce backspin on a drive, rather than buying it in a box stamped "Pro V1x".  Or, go to a ball that reduces backspin across the board instead of just with the driver.  If you want to continue to pound it 330, go ahead, you will need to skill up on the other end to get the necessary backspin on that low spin rock flite for your LW out of the rough around the green you almost drove.

In short, make the golfer utilize skill to fit his swing to the demands of the equipment, not the other way around.

[Bryan Izatt]

Doug,

I can't say one way or another whether the relationship was linear or non-linear back in 1985.  Who knows?  

Would it be deskilling to go to a place where the relationship was significantly non-linear - I think so.  I believe it is a skill in driving to be able to repetitively deliver the sweet spot more or less square to the ball at high speed to achieve the longest drive possible and to keep it in the fairway.  Does it require more skill to do that at higher speeds and longer shafts?  I think so.  If we negate the benefit of increased distance, then that negates a fundamental skill.

No doubt the modern approach to driving for the pros is to find the right launch angle and spin rate to maximize carry and minimize rollout.  Get the max distance and hit a target and try not to let it roll from there into too much trouble.  Now, even the pros don't do that all the time.  It's not a good approach for windy conditions for example.  I wonder whether players of even 10 or 15 years ago even thought about launch angles and spin rates?  I know I didn't.  Has that understanding and the optimization of launch conditions with technology led to greater distance.  Absolutely.  I'd have to think that even if we didn't have modern balls and drivers, that people would still have figured out optimization and increased distance with it, even with old equipment.  Not to the same degree as with modern equipment, though.

You must play a different game than I do if all it takes to drive well is to:

Just get the right ball and correct driver loft for your swing speed and natural launch tendencies, and you are golden.  No messy business using skill and hours of practice

I've spent three years and gone through launch monitors, fitting sessions, spent hours researching the technology and fitting, and built or bought 8 drivers to optimize my driving.  I've also video-taped and analyzed my swing and spent time modifying it to hit a draw after 40 years of fading/slicing the ball.  Although it is certainly better than it was 3 years ago, it's hardly golden. You can't buy driving skill or any golf skill.  You can certainly use technology to enhance the skills you have.  But if you could buy a skill through technology, then the tour pros should be perfect, because they sure practice enough.      

The non-linear example you give is not necessarily bad.  For my logical/scientific mind it doesn't seem fair.  Why is it good?

As to altering my swing, I do it frequently depending on the conditions.  I try to hit low balls into the wind for example.  And draws on some holes and fades on others.  Notwithstanding the common wisdom, the modern balls still bend, at least for me.  Often unintentionally so    For whatever it's worth I don't pound it out there 330 yards and I don't generally flog my way around the course.  My course is punative. And I don't have enough LW skill to get out of the places I could flog it to.

As to fitting the swing to the equipment, isn't that what players do with any generation of equipment.  Certainly 80's golfers had different swings (and therfore skills?) than hickory players.  Is the 80's model the best swing skill that we should aspire to?

[Brent Hutto]

As to fitting the swing to the equipment, isn't that what players do with any generation of equipment.  Certainly 80's golfers had different swings (and therfore skills?) than hickory players.  Is the 80's model the best swing skill that we should aspire to?

Everyone needs to contemplate this question. It is the crux of the issue classic-course preservationists need to come to terms with. Tiger's swing is better than Jack's. Jack's was better than Bobby's. Bobby's was better than Old Tom's. And I'm not talking about the fact that Tiger is stronger and more fit than Jack (and likewise Jack than Bobby, etc.) I'm talking about a better swing in addition to better strength.

This process will continue. Kids who are in elementary school now will have life-long access to training techniques, nutrition plans (and yes, that includes "supplements") and technical instruction that will produce golfers in a couple decades who make Tiger or Michelle Wie look like pikers. And with any given equipment, they are going to hit the ball way further than the best players are hitting it today.

So there's ultimately two possibilities that I can see. Either we're proposing to eventually throttle the ball and/or equipment way, way back (think Titleist Tour Balata performance or worse) or we're going to see the vast majority of 6,500-7,000 yard inland courses rendered unsuitable for competition at the professional, collegiate and national amateur levels.

You can't force Tiger to swing like Bobby Jones and I doubt very much you could convince him to play equipment equivalent to Bobby's. So it's getting pretty hard to insist that he shoot 67's and 68's on courses where Bobby Jones could break par.

[Tom Roewer]

The Aug. 25 issue of Golfworld confirms (page 16) info from tournament officials that the tournament ball was indeed a Volvik ProsPect - " a multilayer ball with a surlyn blend urethane cover - retail price $25 a dozen.

[Bryan Izatt]

Thanks for the info Tom.

I'm sort of surprised given the claims of the company and the z-urethane cover, that the ball appears to play badly around the green, based on the feedback above.  But it apparently adds a few yards at my swing speed based on the reports above, so maybe it's worth a try .  Although I don't recall seeing it on shelves here.

I don't suppose there'll be a rush on sales of the ball to high speed swingers.

Tom, did your brother say anything about whether the OGA told them that there would be a report on the findings of the "experiment" and if so, when?

[Garland Bayley]

...
You can't force Tiger to swing like Bobby Jones and I doubt very much you could convince him to play equipment equivalent to Bobby's. So it's getting pretty hard to insist that he shoot 67's and 68's on courses where Bobby Jones could break par.

Tiger is on record advocating the equipment be rolled back. Remember, he was dominant with old equipment, and actually lost a little dominance when he refused to go forward with the equipment for a while.

I am sure Tiger could care less if he is shooting "67's and 68's on courses where Bobby Jones could break par." As long as he is beating everyone, Tiger is happy.

[Garland Bayley]

...My feeling is that the difference in distance achieved should be proportional to the difference in swing speed.  

Did you feel that in 1995? Or have you recently jumped on that bandwagon, now that you know it exists?

According to a USGA paper that is not the case now with premium balls - the high swing speed players already suffer a small distance penalty compared to their proportional speed increase.  To increase that penalty is, in some way deskilling the game (assuming you consider relative swing speed a skill).

This contradicts what most experts, such as Jack and Tiger, think! The new balls and equipment are deskilling the game. I.e., you can get the same result with less skill. I would not equate size and strength with skill. I have always had the size and strength, but never the skill.

Regarding Tony's comments, the increase in swing speed over the last ten years is due as much to driver technology as fitness I think.  The perfection of lightweight graphite shafts and the lengthening of driver shafts from 43 to 45 or 46 inches has certainly contributed to swing speed increases.  From anecdotal observation over the last 40 years, I'd say more players swing out of their shoes today than did 40 years ago.  Again the shaft and head technology enable them to be more successful doing that.  Re 140 mph swings, I wouldn't be surprised if Holmes and Watson, et al are getting there already.  Just wait for the 30 gram nanotube shaft at 46" to become the standard.

Surprisingly, you don't mention the one thing so many people mention. The lack of spin simply lets players swing harder, because there is much less penalty for being off just a little.

The USGA say they are looking at all these factors as well as the ball.  Good for them, especially if they act.  Focusing on the ball, and its spin alone, will only be a stop-gap at best.  

Ok, Mr. Scientist. Where is your data on that?

One solution, set an ODS above the range of current swing speeds, say 150.  Regulate that balls must perform linearly up to that swing speed.  Regulate the slope of the line to 3 yards (for example) per mph increase.  Throw it over the fence to the manufacturers as to how to do it over some time period.  Trying to regulate specific characteristics or features of balls is always going to be a losing proposition.  The manufacturers will find a way to overcome feature regulation (like spin rate).

From the two report backs so far, we seem to have a ball that has no effect on medium driver swing speeds; negates any distance increase above that medium swing speed; goes further on iron shots; and spins less around the green.  Sounds like an artificial (in Garland's terminology) ball to me.  Is this really what the classic course preservationists want?  

As soon as they announced it would be a 3 piece ball, I knew it would be an artificially regulated spin rate ball.

I had looked at the USGA conforming list and guessed they might choose the Slazenger Green spin ball, because it was rated high spin off driver, high spin off irons. That would have been my choice for such an experiment.

[Bryan Izatt]

...My feeling is that the difference in distance achieved should be proportional to the difference in swing speed.  

Did you feel that in 1995? Or have you recently jumped on that bandwagon, now that you know it exists?

I doubt I thought about it in these terms in 1995.  Which bandwagon are you referring to?  I thought I was sort of a lonely voice on this particular point.

According to a USGA paper that is not the case now with premium balls - the high swing speed players already suffer a small distance penalty compared to their proportional speed increase.  To increase that penalty is, in some way deskilling the game (assuming you consider relative swing speed a skill).

This contradicts what most experts, such as Jack and Tiger, think! The new balls and equipment are deskilling the game. I.e., you can get the same result with less skill. I would not equate size and strength with skill. I have always had the size and strength, but never the skill.

Are Jack and Tiger experts on the USGA report?  Is the deskilling point you make theirs or yours?  Are you saying that swinging faster than someone else, and with equal accuracy is not a skill?

Regarding Tony's comments, the increase in swing speed over the last ten years is due as much to driver technology as fitness I think.  The perfection of lightweight graphite shafts and the lengthening of driver shafts from 43 to 45 or 46 inches has certainly contributed to swing speed increases.  From anecdotal observation over the last 40 years, I'd say more players swing out of their shoes today than did 40 years ago.  Again the shaft and head technology enable them to be more successful doing that.  Re 140 mph swings, I wouldn't be surprised if Holmes and Watson, et al are getting there already.  Just wait for the 30 gram nanotube shaft at 46" to become the standard.

Surprisingly, you don't mention the one thing so many people mention. The lack of spin simply lets players swing harder, because there is much less penalty for being off just a little.

Sure you could add it to the list.  It is is one more factor.

The USGA say they are looking at all these factors as well as the ball.  Good for them, especially if they act.  Focusing on the ball, and its spin alone, will only be a stop-gap at best.  

Ok, Mr. Scientist. Where is your data on that?

Did I say I had data?  It was an opinion.  I think it is intuitively obvious, but then that's not scientific is it.

One solution, set an ODS above the range of current swing speeds, say 150.  Regulate that balls must perform linearly up to that swing speed.  Regulate the slope of the line to 3 yards (for example) per mph increase.  Throw it over the fence to the manufacturers as to how to do it over some time period.  Trying to regulate specific characteristics or features of balls is always going to be a losing proposition.  The manufacturers will find a way to overcome feature regulation (like spin rate).

From the two report backs so far, we seem to have a ball that has no effect on medium driver swing speeds; negates any distance increase above that medium swing speed; goes further on iron shots; and spins less around the green.  Sounds like an artificial (in Garland's terminology) ball to me.  Is this really what the classic course preservationists want?  

Do you have no comment on my solution two paragraphs above?  Or are you, at heart, a micro-regulator.  D)

As soon as they announced it would be a 3 piece ball, I knew it would be an artificially regulated spin rate ball.

Are 4 piece balls also artificial?  Are two piece balls natural?  Are wound balls natural?  Is a wound ball not 3 pieces - a core, a very long winding, and a cover?  And what is natural and artificial after all?  

I had looked at the USGA conforming list and guessed they might choose the Slazenger Green spin ball, because it was rated high spin off driver, high spin off irons. That would have been my choice for such an experiment.

You know that the spin ratings in the USGA list are the manufacturer's claim?  Volvik rated the Pro'sPect as medium spin;  the OGA apparently felt it was high spin.  Who's to say the Slazenger isn't really a low spin ball?  Wouldn't a database of independent results based on a standard testing approach be nice?

I'm beginning to feel like I'm channeling Mucci.  That's not good is it?

[TEPaul]

What did this OGA tournament experiment prove and what will it contribute to the future of golf, it anything?

First, it apparently contributed a lot of food for speculation about I&B judging from the posts on this thread. Is that important to do? Perhaps.

Did it uncover anything that the manufacturers and/or the USGA didn't already know about I&B, particularly golf balls and their performance? I would seriously doubt that.

But this OGA tournament may've contributed a few other things that haven't been much talked about on these threads.

It may give the R&A/USGA an additional excuse and some cover with the manufacturers to consider and write and institute some new I&B Rules and Regs on future golf ball conformance. I doubt that would be the implimentation of a so-called "competition" golf ball but it may be some new regs for future balls generally.

And I feel this event will probably be the single thing most responsible for the R&A/USGA considering new definitions and clarifications within the Rules of Golf (probably in Rule 33 and the Appendix) to further evolve what is and what isn't "autonomy" on the part of a "committee" to institute their own "Conditions of Competition" within the Rules of Golf.

Interestingly, this concept---eg the "committee" and how it functions within the Rules of Golf is not as well developed at this point as some might expect it is. That seems to have been proven by the fact that numerous rules authorities lacked consensus about what the OGA just did with this single specified ball "requirement" for all competitors, since at this point, there is no specific "condition of competition" to encompass and permit such a thing.

Rules authorites and Rules interpreters and writers don't like situations that breed lack of consensus, on their part at least, and it would therefore surprise me if this event did not prompt them to better define and clarify something like the permitted use of a "Condition of Competition" such as a single specified golf ball requirement for all competitors.

Will they actually write a "competition" ball "condition" into the Appendix of the Rules book known as Appendix 1, Part C (Conditions of Competition)?

That alone is a most interesting question. They might since it clearly would give them cover against the manufacturers if the R&A/USGA are entertaining ideas of implimenting new ball conformance rules and regs but they might not because such a thing smacks of two (or more) I&B standards which they have been heretofore philosophically opposed to. They have clearly stated that they are in favor of maintaining a single standard on I&B for all golfers---the way it has always been in golf I&B conformance.

But apart from that this OGA situation may evolve the definition and clarification of what they think a committee's autonomy is on this kind of thing. The concept of the "committee" in golf and what it can or cannot do in the eyes of the R&A/USGA Rules interpreters and writers hasn't much evolved since the R&A/USGA Rules unification meetings in the 1950s.

To me this looks like one of those events that will further evolve the definition and clarification of that concept. In some conversations with a few OGA representatives it sounded to me like they would welcome this outcome as much as they would welcome either the outcome of a "competition" golf ball or some form of distance rollback.

A trivia point:

Apparently this is not the first time the OGA has tried to impliment their own "condition of competition". Some time ago they tried to impliment a "condition" of competition to permit the fixing of spike marks on putting greens before a stroke. The USGA shot that one down by explaining that that violated a Rule of golf and was therefore not permitted within the Rules of Golf.

So what would the USGA's positon have been if they had implimented that "condition" of competition on their own?

The USGA's position would have been the same as with any tournament where the Rules of Golf are not applied accurately---eg if there had been any Rules question at all from that tournament the USGA would have had no opinion on it since in their eyes the tournament was not conducted under the Rules of Golf.

Clearly this requiremnt on the OGA's part to use a single specified golf ball for all competitors is different than that and apparently more complex in an over-all sense.

[Garland Bayley]

This contradicts what most experts, such as Jack and Tiger, think! The new balls and equipment are deskilling the game. I.e., you can get the same result with less skill. I would not equate size and strength with skill. I have always had the size and strength, but never the skill.

Are Jack and Tiger experts on the USGA report?  Is the deskilling point you make theirs or yours?  Are you saying that swinging faster than someone else, and with equal accuracy is not a skill?

...
Surprisingly, you don't mention the one thing so many people mention. The lack of spin simply lets players swing harder, because there is much less penalty for being off just a little.

Sure you could add it to the list.  It is is one more factor.

So we add it to the list. Then we experiment to find out whether the person mentioned above is swinging faster with equal accuracy. I believe the lack of spin is currently disguising an unequal accuracy on the faster swings. That is why if I were the OGA, I would find a ball that spun similarly to the balata balls and use it for my tournament. If I were the USGA, I would be asking manufacturers to create such balls for testing.

...

Are 4 piece balls also artificial?  Are two piece balls natural?  Are wound balls natural?  Is a wound ball not 3 pieces - a core, a very long winding, and a cover?  And what is natural and artificial after all?  

I had looked at the USGA conforming list and guessed they might choose the Slazenger Green spin ball, because it was rated high spin off driver, high spin off irons. That would have been my choice for such an experiment.

You know that the spin ratings in the USGA list are the manufacturer's claim?  Volvik rated the Pro'sPect as medium spin;  the OGA apparently felt it was high spin.  Who's to say the Slazenger isn't really a low spin ball?  Wouldn't a database of independent results based on a standard testing approach be nice?

I think you already know my definition of unnatural, a spin rate that is not proportional to the loft of the clubface throughout the set. The three piece balls were invented to alter this proportionality. Yes, unfortunately the spin rates in the conforming ball list are not determined by the USGA, in which case I believe they have no business publishing them. I do believe they should measure them themselves, and publish them.

You admit you probably didn't think about these issues in 1995. I would guess that would mean that if the ball spin had stayed similar to what it was in 1995, you would have been accepting of the fairness of the balls. It seems that now that Pandora's box has been opened, you are truly unwilling to close it.

I find it interesting that your scientific intuition leads you to conclude that the distance increase is probably fairly equally weighted between a number of factors, whereas my scientific intuition leads me to conclude that ball spin dominates in causing the increase.

[Garland Bayley]

It occurred to me that since I am inexperienced in discussing such matters that I am not describing the spin characteristics I advocate very well. Just calling it proportional doesn't cut it. More accurately, I am advocating a limit on the slope of the plot of the spin rate plotted from low club loft to high club loft. The three piece ball was invented to (as I call it) artificially increase the slope of this plot.

[Brent Hutto]

The three piece ball was invented to (as I call it) artificially increase the slope of this plot.

It is more correct to say that the three piece ball is marketed as providing different spin characteristics with different clubs. Surely you do realize that golf-ball marketing gobbledegook does not actually recapitulate the process of developing golf balls.

Did you know that a urethane cover will not adhere to the flexible core material of a solid-core golf ball? Surlyn will, urethane will not. There must be a third layer made of a material that adheres well to both the urethane cover material and the core material.

Therefore, most surlyn balls are two piece (although now that "three piece" is considered better there have been some built that way too). However, all urethane covered golf balls are three piece (or four piece or five piece). My advice is to avoid making technical claims based on advertising copy.

[Garland Bayley]

The three piece ball was invented to (as I call it) artificially increase the slope of this plot.

It is more correct to say that the three piece ball is marketed as providing different spin characteristics with different clubs. Surely you do realize that golf-ball marketing gobbledegook does not actually recapitulate the process of developing golf balls.

Did you know that a urethane cover will not adhere to the flexible core material of a solid-core golf ball? Surlyn will, urethane will not. There must be a third layer made of a material that adheres well to both the urethane cover material and the core material.

Therefore, most surlyn balls are two piece (although now that "three piece" is considered better there have been some built that way too). However, all urethane covered golf balls are three piece (or four piece or five piece). My advice is to avoid making technical claims based on advertising copy.

It seems that my technical claims are not based on advertising copy, but what at least http://www.peachpit.com/articles/article.asp?p=102619&rl=1 would indicate to be fact.

The Strata 3-piece ball started the age of artificial spin repression/enhancement.
From the linked article:

The Top-Flite Strata golf ball, introduced in the mid-1990's, however, did the unimaginable. It merged a high-spinning, soft-feeling Tour Balata type of ball, with the low-spinning, long-flying, and durable Pinnacle or distance ball into a whole new class of product. This remarkable three-piece ball, was, indeed, two balls in one: It was a long-flying/low-spinning distance ball off the tee, and a high-spinning control ball off the irons. Remarkably enough, Strata's ball design team accomplished this two–for-one feat rather simply. They just added a soft polyurethane cover on what was virtually a Top-Flite distance ball, and then added a thin middle or mantle layer that encased the ball's already large and solid rubber core.

I believe it to be the primary factor in the distance increase and skill degradation as does Billy Mayfair. From the linked article

Billy Mayfair, PGA Tour player, on today's golf ball

Everyone is talking about testing the new driver heads for illegal COR, etc., but I think the golf ball is making more of a difference in the game than anything else is. The golf ball has changed the game more than the driver has. I play the Titleist ProV1x ball, and it doesn't curve as much anymore like they used to. You just swing as hard as you want at it and it goes straight at the flag. Working the ball is still important on certain shots, but it's not as much of a must thing anymore. One of the guys I remember who used to work the ball the best in the world was the late Payne Stewart. He brought the ball in high, low, left-to-right, right-to-left, every which way possible. That was what made him such a great player. These days I don't think working the ball would help him as much, because you don't need to shape the ball like you used to because the ball just flies so straight. I think 95% of the guys on Tour would say that the changes in the golf ball today have made a bigger difference in the game than anything else has.

Finally, it seems that high speed swingers may be getting extra distance from the ball from increased response to their high speed swings that is built into the ball. No wonder Iron Byron became obsolete.

If the progression from a two- to three-piece ball yielded such performance benefits, why wouldn't companies progress to a four-piece ball? Of course, this is exactly what they did, with balls such as the Ben Hogan Apex Tour, Titleist's ProV1x, the Nike One, and the Strata Tour Ace. All but Titleist's ball feature a second firm mantle layer that acts like a conduit during impact that transfers extra energy into the core for even more low-spin-derived distance. The ProV1x achieves extra firmness by adding a second core. These balls perform best, however, for golfers with exceptionally high clubhead speed (in excess of 100 mph with the driver), because it takes considerable force to penetrate the additional material added to the balls.

[Garland Bayley]

From Geoff Shackelford's interview with Gary Van Sickle, who played in the tournament. GVS is quoted below with my comments.

"it was odd that we lost distance because the ball spun more, yet it didn't spin and check up with short irons. one conclusion of the oga guys was that there's a lot more to ball technology than they realized."

That's not odd if the spin rate graph has a flatter slope. I.e. the ProV1 driver spin is lower, but the short irons are higher spin, thereby giving the ProV1 a steeper slope.

"if the usga really wanted to start something, they could turn golf into baseball and let the pros use only wood (persimmon) and the public use metal. that would solve the whole distance issue immediately. metal woods were where the game first got away from the usga."

So it's not the ball, it's the driver.
 
So why did the PGA pros hit 3 iron on a 250 yard par 3? Probably should make them hit wooden hybrids!

[Garland Bayley]

Lee Trevino on the ball:
-- On technology's impact on golf: "The golf ball has ruined the game. It doesn't bend as much as it used to. The USGA has dropped the ball on the golf ball -- they won't admit it, but they know."

[A.G._Crockett]

The idea that golf at ANY level, much less the professional level, has been "deskilled" is really odd to me.  Where's the evidence of that?  

At the professional level, the guy that was the best before the ProVI is still the best, and it is because of his head and his heart and his short game as much if not more than the distance he hits the ball with a driver.  The next generation of players that was suppose to challenge if not dethrone him isn't winning big, at least yet.  Howell, Baddely, Scott, Garcia, and others were touted because of how far they hit the ball, but it seems obvious now that their other skills have a ways to go yet.  Golf deskilled?  Where's the evidence?

I'm very interested in the Ohio experiment, and hope that somebody will publish a reasonable study of exactly what happened there.  I'd love to see a bunch of experimentation, especially with a ball that is high spin off both the driver and a wedge.  But being interested is a far cry from being worried about the game and imagining that it has been "deskilled".

[Bryan Izatt]

Yet more info on the great experiment from a Golf World article.

http://www.golfdigest.com/newsandtour/index.ssf?/newsandtour/gw20060901equipment.html

Seems they have seen the initial data and confirm:

"An initial review of the data from the tournament, obtained by Golf Digest and Golf World, suggested the ball carried 10-15 yards shorter on tee shots than tour-caliber multilayer urethane-cover balls. There were players whose distance loss fell on both sides of that range, although generally, higher-speed players saw the greater decreases. Flight data for short irons, however, indicated the ball may actually have been slightly longer, but generated less spin. The latter characteristic caused some consternation among players."

At least one competitor makes the fairness comment that has been made around here:

""If you're in the gym three or four days a week and working hard on your game to do what you can to create more speed, you should be rewarded," said Wilson, the 2005 Ohio amateur champion."

GeoffShac, on his site, in an interview with Gary Van Sickle, an SI sports writer who played in the OGA event, quotes GVS as saying "GVanSickle:    no, the ball seemed to go no more offline than usual...".  Seems the ball doesn't perform as many here would have expected for a higher spinning ball.

GVS is also quoted as saying: "one conclusion of the oga guys was that there's a lot more to ball technology than they realized."  Maybe there's a thought there for those of you who just want to dial up the spin rate.

At the Golf World URL there is another piece on "USGA sends "interim report" on spin".  The gist of it seems to be that there is a 114 page report sent to manufacturers that:

"Although the report states "no final conclusions have been reached and no proposals for rule changes are included," the results appear to indicate that U-shaped grooves may be in the USGA's crosshairs."

Interesting that the focus is on grooves and not ball spin.  Controlling ball distance might be more a matter of controlling the compression characteristics of the ball than the spin.

[TEPaul]

"GVS is also quoted as saying: "one conclusion of the oga guys was that there's a lot more to ball technology than they realized."  Maybe there's a thought there for those of you who just want to dial up the spin rate."

Bryan:

Maybe there is a real point here---eg if the OGA wanted to know a bit more about various performance characteristics of the golf ball perhaps the thing for them to do would be to get in contact with the USGA Tech Center.  

Somehow I managed to get the Tech Center to explain to me that "spin rate" is a very important factor in golf ball performance even though it is not the only factor.  

[A.G._Crockett]

"GVS is also quoted as saying: "one conclusion of the oga guys was that there's a lot more to ball technology than they realized."  Maybe there's a thought there for those of you who just want to dial up the spin rate."

Bryan:

Maybe there is a real point here---eg if the OGA wanted to know a bit more about various performance characteristics of the golf ball perhaps the thing for them to do would be to get in contact with the USGA Tech Center.  

Somehow I managed to get the Tech Center to explain to me that "spin rate" is a very important factor in golf ball performance even though it is not the only factor.  

But Tom, if someone actually tapped into the USGA for information, how would they maintain the idea that the USGA isn't doing anything, and that the "solutions" are simple?

[Bryan Izatt]

Tom,

Indeed, they could have asked the USGA for ball performance data.  But, would the USGA have given it to them, knowing that the OGA was giving them a slap upside the head over the ball issue.

The OGA appears to have used Hot Stix Golf of Phoenix to do their testing at the tournament.  Hot Stix is a fitting company.  They claim to fit you for balls as well as clubs.  To do that they claim to have a database of ball testing they've done.  I asked them if I could get access to their data (even paying).  The answer was nope.  Perhaps that's how the OGA settled on the Volvik; they got the test data from Hot Stix.  I wonder if they knew of the performance characteristics off the short irons, or just the driver performance, before they started.

[Garland Bayley]

...
GeoffShac, on his site, in an interview with Gary Van Sickle, an SI sports writer who played in the OGA event, quotes GVS as saying "GVanSickle:    no, the ball seemed to go no more offline than usual...".  Seems the ball doesn't perform as many here would have expected for a higher spinning ball.
...

The complete quote is as follows:
'the ball seemed to go no more offline than usual... if that's possible to say for a player of my limited skill"

[TEPaul]

"But Tom, if someone actually tapped into the USGA for information, how would they maintain the idea that the USGA isn't doing anything, and that the "solutions" are simple?  

A.G.

Precisely. I think you just tapped into the modus operandi of most GOLFCLUBATLASERS!  

[Patrick_Mucci]

The "Ball" chosen by the OGA isn't important, it's the "concept" and pursuit of that concept that's important.