[JESII]

Richard,

You say that as though it were fact...the local little league just switched to wood because they wanted to play what the pros play. I don't think many little leaguers are shattering bats, and the college teams would get them free as well...do you have evidence that it's purely a financial decision at some level?

[Garland Bayley]

Richard,

You say that as though it were fact...the local little league just switched to wood because they wanted to play what the pros play. I don't think many little leaguers are shattering bats, and the college teams would get them free as well...do you have evidence that it's purely a financial decision at some level?

Don't know about you, but when I was young little league players broke bats very often.
The movement I have heard about in little league is to go back to wooden bats for safety. The COR of the aluminum bats is higher, and the ball goes back at the pitcher faster.

[Richard Choi]

Richard,

You say that as though it were fact...the local little league just switched to wood because they wanted to play what the pros play. I don't think many little leaguers are shattering bats, and the college teams would get them free as well...do you have evidence that it's purely a financial decision at some level?

Jim, I have worked with a lot of baseball professionals in the past and have done a lot of research into baseball. It is a pretty common knowledge.

But here are some quotes from a recent article...

"I just don't see the aluminum bat hindering our game in any way," Mississippi State's John Cohen said. "In an ideal world, wood would be cheap, very cost efficient and it would be totally equitable. That can never happen."

"Proponents of metal argue that all 301 Division I programs play with the same thing and there's no risk of having top programs playing with better wooden bats, potentially skewing the results. They also like the scoring boost and say a $300 aluminum bat can last an entire 56-game season, while $100 wooden bats can break at any time. "

"Aluminum bats were seen as a cost-saving alternative to wood when they were introduced at the college level in 1974"

And, Garland is correct. Wood bats are safer because balls don't come off them as hot as they do with aluminum bats.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Seems like the same fix would work well for Little League, college BB or golf. 'Soften' the ball and you can use any steel you want.

 

[Jim Sweeney]

The number of drives hit over 350, or 356 yards is not necessarily a reliable guage. For example, at Kapalua's 18th just about every player hits it thagt far approx. 440 rounds, with many edging up to 400 nyards, not because of the ball or club but because of the hole's design and the course condition and the favorable trade winds.

Again I must caution about picking only on the ball. Equipment and training also count for something, as does the fact that players are just bigger than they used to be.

[Carl Nichols]

Again I must caution about picking only on the ball. Equipment and training also count for something, as does the fact that players are just bigger than they used to be.

And perhaps conditioning?  Are fairways a little tighter/smoother, such that you might get 1-2 yards more per drive?  Not sure it has any effect, and it certainly wouldn't be a large effect by itself, but when added to club and ball technology (let's not forget launch monitors), as well as physical training, you get a big delta.

[Adam Clayman]

Shaq's reporting a one day lab experiment with a ball the mannies have supplied.
....

 

Garland, I really do not know what you are trying to say with your only emoticon posts, but, if you meant WTF, here's the what...

Asked about an unofficial upcoming dialed-back ball day, Tour deputy director Dan Halldorson threw up his hand like a stop sign last week during the Players Cup at Pine Ridge. He said he couldn't speak about it.

What we do know is that the Tour, after one of its events next month, is going to have a couple dozen of its players come back on a Monday for some research.

They'll play in what could be termed a one-day tournament. It might be better termed a lab experiment, and they'll all play with the same kind of golf ball -- one of these less-zippy models.

Word is these "prototype" balls will be anywhere from 10 to 20 per cent shorter, with the 20 per cent figure applying only to the hardest-hit and longest shots from the driver.

The group of pros will include Wininpeg's Adam Speirs. They will have just played a 72-hole tournament and will have assembled a good diary of information about distances and clubs hit.

[DMoriarty]

I disagree with that. Especially given what Bridgestone has done in the past few years. Their B330 series has balls that are hard cored for high swing speed players and others that have softer cores for better players who don't swing as fast. Add to that their E series which has balls for the even slower swing speed players to gain distance with less spin.

Johnj,  

As you said above, prove it.   Do you have any proof that the Bridgestones or any other swing-speed tailored ball flies further for the slow swinger than the state of the art balls (Balata's, professionals, etc.)  before the distance boom?    While it makes for a good advertisement I don't believe it.    I have seen or experienced nothing to convince me otherwise.  

Granted, these balls may work better for the slow swinger than the Pro Vx type balls.  But better than what was used before?    I am very doubtful.   So far as I can see, the fast swinging golfer has reaped a huge distance dividend and these swing speed specific balls do little or nothing to change this.   Maybe they will in the future, but I am not sure they can provide a similar distance bump for the short hitter without violating the USGA rules for ball distance at the faster end.

_______________________________________________

It is moronic when two -3 index players, one a long hitter and one a short hitter, do not fit well on the same golf course from the same tees.  
 

David,

Could you elaborate on this question please? What specific example are you referencing?

Thanks.

A few ideas behind that statement (which was in response to someone's claim it was moronic to change things for 0.001%.)

1.  It is inaccurate to characterize the out of control distance as only mattering at the very top end (the supposed 0.001%.)   Anyone with a reasonably fast swing speed has reaped some sort of benefit relative to the slower swingers.  And there are many marginal golfers with fast swing speeds.  They exist all through the single digit index players and even higher.

2.  The flip-side is some excellent golfers with slow swing speeds have become much shorter off the tee relative to the long hitters of similar general ability.  (And not-so good-golfers got shorter relative to other not-so-good golfers.)

3.  This imbalances the architecture in ways that go well beyond just total distance of courses.  It is very difficult build or even set-up a course so it works well for slow and fast swinging players of similar abilities.  If features are in play for one, they are likely entirely irrelevant to the other.  Any sort of forced carry long enough to be remotely interesting to the long hitter will be unplayable to the short hitter.  Courses long enough to challenge the long hitter would be death marches for the short hitter.   If they fit the short hitter, they are wedge after wedge for the longer players. Etc.

[TEPaul]

I'd been away for a few days, but I pretty much agree with the last post of David Moriarty, particularly the second part where he lists 1, 2 and 3 to apparently Jim Sullivan.

I don't think there is much question that what I would call the "distance differential" between the highest swing speed players and the rest really did widen significantly beginning between 15-20 years ago. I pretty much know all this from personal experience back before the so-called distance increase or the widening of the distance differential between high swing speed players and lower swing speed players, even lower swing speed scratch players, and what I have seen since particularly in officiating Class A tournaments.

Back in the 1980s the longest drivers around like Jay Sigel (who could hit his driver a tad farther than the likes of Norman and Ballesteros) or a John Webster from my club could hit their tee shots 40-50 yards farther than I could. The actual numbers were around 230 to about 270 to 280. Today, even being older and weaker I can still hit it about the same distance I did then but now golfers with the swing speeds those two mentioned used to have can hit a drive up to 100 yards farther than I can. That is a significant real world difference I would call a significant widening of the "distance differential."

Does this have an impact if you have to put a spectrum of scratch players on the same course and setup? Of course it does. And doubling that "distance differential" is very significant that way too.

Why did it happen? THAT, in my mind, at least, is a story that is very provable, even if it is a pretty complex story that deals with some pretty interesting and unexpected historical ramifications. To do something about it at this point----eg to dial back that distance differential to about what it used to be may not be all that hard. Some may call it trying to put the Genie back in the bottle. I don't think so if one begins at the beginning and carefully analyzes how the whole thing played out over the last 40-50 years with particularly the development of the golf ball and who used what at any particular point in time.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()