[Melvyn Morrow]

Jud

I do not have my head stuck in the sand, far from it. I am voicing my opinions strongly on what I feel is wrong with the game and which is getting worse year on year.

This is a DG but many do not commit to discussion or for that matter bother that much about contributing to any subject, let alone starting a topic.

I want the subjects that are slowly strangling the game brought out into the open. However, if many do not see a problem, many more cannot be bothered even though they may agree there is a problem, what can you do except keep plodding on. The fact of the matter is that we always have to fall back on history to seek an answer or resolution to the problem. Correct me if I am wrong but your own legal system works that way. Your courts accept and refer to previous cases as acceptable points of law (it has precedent), so we too in golf should have the same facility on that basis, if it is good enough for our legal system then it should be good enough for golf. History shows golf is a walking game, now all you have to do is find something to back up your point of view.

Of course, there is the common sense approach that we just can keep increasing the length of our course for the gifted few. That in doing so, we destroy our own history and great courses, not to mention wonderful holes in the process. However, the most obvious would IHMO be the actual cost to keep increasing the courses, then the cost for new sites as no more space or spare land at the existing sites and the cost to design and build these new marathon courses. In the meantime, equipment manufacturers will continue to seek to better their previous efforts, starting the whole ball rolling again. Nevertheless, while all this is going on the only losers are the golfers who pay for the privilege to play the game of golf. All will continue to make money out of us, the poor sods who have to pay in the end, be it for new equipment or new or modifying courses.

Therefore, I believe the only ones who are sticking their head in the sand are those who know they are going to make lots of money doing nothing. The equipment Manufacturers and our governing bodies are fighting for a place in the sand.

To those who can’t be bothered, don’t moan or complain, those who are aware and can’t be bothered because it does not really affect them, you should be ashamed of yourselves. Those who prefer to ride carts are not involved because they are not playing golf, which leaves just a few who do seem to care, who feel that the game matters.

So Jud, don’t worry, it’s not me with my head in the sand, its you because who do not know what to do, so you are willing to take advantage of all options, well why not, its only golf.

Melvyn   

[Garland Bayley]

Bryan,

It appears your quoted study is irrelevant to what we are discussing here. It is a comparison of slow swinging tour pros with fast swinging tour pros.

It conveniently neglects to point out that if you plot distance against swing speed for the high spinning ball and distance against swing speed for the low spinning ball, that the lines cross. They cross at a point well below the slow swinging tour pro's swing speed.

[Jud_T]

Bryan,

merely pointing out the following (and off topic):

http://www.la84foundation.org/SportsLibrary/Outing/Volume_39/outXXXIX02/outXXXIX02u.pdf

[Jud_T]

I was going to write something about us all loving the classic courses and wanting to do what we can to preserve them and why does every discussion here need to turn into a pissing match, but I couldn't get my head out of the sand cart path......

[DMoriarty]

Bryan,

We have discussed it before, and I don't have time to get into it in great detail right now, but I will try to later.

The USGA study established nothing more than that they themselves have no concept of the problem that the new balls have created for golf. They set up then disproved a few overly simplistic claims, but in the process they completely ignored the real problem.    

In essence, the USGA proved what most high school physics students could probably guess at.   For a particular golf ball the distance gained by increasing swing speed from 110 to 120 mph will be less than the distance gained by increasing the swing speed from 100 to 110 mph.  

So, for example, BALL A gained about 34 yards when swing speed was increased from 90 to 100 mph, and about 31 yards from 100 to 110 mph, and increased just under 25 yards when swing speed increased from 110 yards to 120 mph.    So, FOR A PARTICULAR BALL, incremental increases in swing speed DO NOT result in disproportionate increases in distance gained.   Fine.  That makes perfect sense.   It is not accurate to say that the ProV1x suddenly is activated at 110 mph.    

However, this entirely misses the issue.   As understand it, the issue is:  DOES THE NEW BALL TECHNOLOGY DISPROPORTIONALLY BENEFIT THOSE WITH FASTER SWING SPEEDS?  The answer is YES.  

[I know some of you are thinking  But you just agreed with the usga that the answer is "No."   I haven't.   It is difficult to understand (apparently too difficult for the USGA) but the study and result above doesn't even address this issue.]

In order to figure this out we must compare driving distances of the new balls at various swing speeds with BALLS WHICH WERE STATE OF THE ART BEFORE THE INTRODUCTION OF THESE NEW BALLS.   That way we can look at who has benefited from these balls and who has not.  Also, we need to keep in mind that, for most golfers, swing speeds can't go much higher.   I can't rev my swing speed up to 120.    What matters for me is, "With my swing speed, does the ProV1x go further than what I could have bought before."  The answer is obviously NO.
________________________________________

A hypothetical using three balls and three golfers, and two jumps in ball distance technology . . .  
The BALLS:  the PRE (representing the state of the art before the first tech jump, when new balls took over), the V (representing the first generation of these new balls), and the X (representing the second generation fo these new balls.)  
The GOLFERS:  EIGHTY, HUNDRED, and ONE-TWENTY, named after their swing speed.
- EIGHTY hits the PRE farther than the V and a lot farther than the X.

- HUNDRED hits V a lot farther than the PRE and farther than the X.  

- ONE-TWENTY hits the X a lot farther than both the PRE and the V.  

What has the technological boom done for EIGHTY's driving distance?  NOTHING.  The first tech bump hurt EIGHTY relative to the others, and the second bump hurt him more.   (If he can no longer find a ball similar to the PRE and must play something like X or V, then his actual driving distance decreases in real terms, and his relative disadvantage to the others grows even greater.)

What has the technological boom done for HUNDRED's driving distance?    The first tech bump gave HUNDRED a disproportionate advantage over EIGHTY, compared to where they were before.  (But the second Tech bump put him at a relative disadvantage to ONE-TWENTY.

What has the technological boom done for ONE-TWENTY?  Relative to the state of the art before the advance, ONE-TWENTY HAS REAPED BIG BENEFITS over the other two.

So if PRE has gotten no benefit from the technological advances, and ONE-TWENTY has reaped huge benefits, then how can the USGA say that "there is no extra distance bonus for high swing speeds."    Well, they can't at least not if they want to correctly state the current circumstance.   But the reason that they do so is that their study was asking the WRONG QUESTIONS.  

The USGA focused on how each particular ball behaved as swing speed increased without COMPARING HOW NEW BALLS BEHAVED COMPARED TO OLD BALLS.     So, the USGA told EIGHTY, HUNDRED, AND ONE-TWENTY that if they ALL PLAY THE ProVIx, the distance difference between HUNDRED'S drive and EIGHTY's drive will be slightly larger than the distance difference between ONE-TWENTY's drive and HUNDRED's drive.    But if I am EIGHTY that is of little comfort, because if I PLAY THE ProV1x then I take a huge hit to my distance compared to what it was before! I lose ground while they gain ground, because I don't swing fast enough for the ball to work for me at all.   And it sure is heck seems like they have received a distance dividend that has passed me by.

_____________________________

The USGA's own numbers more than hint at this glitch in their study.   From 90 to 100 mph, the distance increases 34 yards, or 3.4 yards per mph.   As we go down in speed we will lose slightly more distance per mph (this is the corollary of gaining less distance as swingspeed goes up. So when we drop from 90 to 80 we lose more than 34 yards, and if we drop to 70 mph we lose at least 102 yards and probably a bit more.  

According to the study, the distance of BALL A at 90 mph swing speed was about 220 yards.   So for the 80 mph swing speed, the distance is less than 186 yards, total driving distance.   For the 70 mph swinger, the total distance is less than 153 yards.    AND THESE NUMBERS ARE PROBABLY TOO LONG, BECAUSE THE USGA HAS PROVEN THAT INCREASE IN DISTANCE PER INCREASE IN MPH TAPERS OFF AS THE NUMBERS GET HIGHER (THEREFORE THE DECREASE MUST GROW AS SWINGSPEED DECREASES.

Does anyone think that someone with an 80 mph or 70 mph swing speed has gotten any more distance out of the technology behind this ball?   Even the golfer with a 90 mph swing speed is only driving it just over 220 yards total with this technologically advanced ball.   Meanwhile those with swinging it 125 mph are hitting it 320.   So a golfer with a swing speed of 90 (which used to be a respectable swing speed) is almost 100 yards behind those with faster swing speeds.    

I don't have great numbers for the old balls, but I think I may have some somewhere and I'll try to find them later.  

NOTE:  EDITED TO CORRECT SOME ERRORS IN THE NUMBERS.

[DMoriarty]

As I noted above, I made some changes to the above, and apologize for those writing long posts to correct those errors.  I am sure you will be able to find other errors though.  

__________________________________________________________________

Bryan,  I didn't address what should be done, but if you've followed me thus far then you probably have a pretty good idea of where I am going.  

The problem is that USGA is essentially encouraging the manufacturers to build golf balls that pass the distance test yet have very steep increases in distance gained per incremental increase in swing speed.  So when their professionals swing faster, they reap a large (but slightly diminishing) benefit for each mph increase.   Unfortunately, this means that these balls lose at least the same distance for every step down in swing speed.   So while these balls are great for fast swing speeds, they are dogs for the rest of us.

I really can't get to into it now but it seems that they need to not only set a max limit at a certain speed, but also place a control on the slope of the increased distance per incremental increase in club head speed.     This could be accomplished easily enough by setting distance limits at speeds, or by setting one limit and then also setting a maximum slope (the same thing really) And according to the study you site, the manufacturers couldn't possibly go above this max slope as swing speeds increase.  

This would get at both the absolute distance problem and the relative gap between long and short.  

[Sean_A]

Sean,

Your endless preaching about not buying modern equipment is getting a bit tiring.

It's the ball Sean! There is no option for buying a ball comparable to the old ball. It doesn't exist. You are asking people to do the impossible.

It has been pointed out on this site time and again that the clear cause of the distance problem is the ball. There was a significant jump in distance when the Strata was introduced. Followed by Titleist losing the tour ball preference race, to which they responded by copying the Strata with the ProV1. The second jump occurred when they discovered they could optimize the use of the new ball by changing equipment to using higher lofts on the drivers.

Since for a particular person a 7 degree driver was optimal with the old ball, and 11 degree driver is optimal for the new ball. Are you saying a person is a hypocrite if he doesn't continue to play a 7 degree driver with the new ball?

If you are going to call people hypocrites, you need to be knowledgeable enough to know you are speaking the truth instead of just being insulting.

Garland

I don't know what else to call a guy who complains about something, but then carries on feeding the problem.  That said, I didn't call Jud a hypocrite.  I said he would be a hypocrite if he did as described.  I have no idea about Jud or his playing practices and frankly, I don't care.  I have made it clear that I don't believe the long ball has caused me any grief whatsoever.  The so called problem has been blown way out of proportion so far as I am concerned.  Furthrmore, I have made it clear that it is my opinion that courses would be changed for whatever reason.  At the moment, for some clubs the reason is the course is too short.  I don't buy it, but that is fine with me because there will always be some justification which will often be dodgy.    

Ciao

[Garland Bayley]

Sean,

Your endless preaching about not buying modern equipment is getting a bit tiring.

It's the ball Sean! There is no option for buying a ball comparable to the old ball. It doesn't exist. You are asking people to do the impossible.

It has been pointed out on this site time and again that the clear cause of the distance problem is the ball. There was a significant jump in distance when the Strata was introduced. Followed by Titleist losing the tour ball preference race, to which they responded by copying the Strata with the ProV1. The second jump occurred when they discovered they could optimize the use of the new ball by changing equipment to using higher lofts on the drivers.

Since for a particular person a 7 degree driver was optimal with the old ball, and 11 degree driver is optimal for the new ball. Are you saying a person is a hypocrite if he doesn't continue to play a 7 degree driver with the new ball?

If you are going to call people hypocrites, you need to be knowledgeable enough to know you are speaking the truth instead of just being insulting.

Garland

I don't know what else to call a guy who complains about something, but then carries on feeding the problem.  That said, I didn't call Jud a hypocrite.  I said he would be a hypocrite if he did as described.  I have no idea about Jud or his playing practices and frankly, I don't care.  I have made it clear that I don't believe the long ball has caused me any grief whatsoever.  The so called problem has been blown way out of proportion so far as I am concerned.  Furthrmore, I have made it clear that it is my opinion that courses would be changed for whatever reason.  At the moment, for some clubs the reason is the course is too short.  I don't buy it, but that is fine with me because there will always be some justification which will often be dodgy.    

Ciao

Sean,

Did you even read what I wrote? Are you claiming that someone is a hypocrite if they don't give up golf in order to complain about the ball?

You say that you don't believe the long ball has caused you any grief. Then why do you come to the States and complain about the cost of golf where you would like to play? As the ball get longer, the cost of golf goes up. It is as simple as that. You want us to believe it doesn't cause you any grief? Then don't make your complaints public.

[Sean_A]

Sean,

Your endless preaching about not buying modern equipment is getting a bit tiring.

It's the ball Sean! There is no option for buying a ball comparable to the old ball. It doesn't exist. You are asking people to do the impossible.

It has been pointed out on this site time and again that the clear cause of the distance problem is the ball. There was a significant jump in distance when the Strata was introduced. Followed by Titleist losing the tour ball preference race, to which they responded by copying the Strata with the ProV1. The second jump occurred when they discovered they could optimize the use of the new ball by changing equipment to using higher lofts on the drivers.

Since for a particular person a 7 degree driver was optimal with the old ball, and 11 degree driver is optimal for the new ball. Are you saying a person is a hypocrite if he doesn't continue to play a 7 degree driver with the new ball?

If you are going to call people hypocrites, you need to be knowledgeable enough to know you are speaking the truth instead of just being insulting.

Garland

I don't know what else to call a guy who complains about something, but then carries on feeding the problem.  That said, I didn't call Jud a hypocrite.  I said he would be a hypocrite if he did as described.  I have no idea about Jud or his playing practices and frankly, I don't care.  I have made it clear that I don't believe the long ball has caused me any grief whatsoever.  The so called problem has been blown way out of proportion so far as I am concerned.  Furthrmore, I have made it clear that it is my opinion that courses would be changed for whatever reason.  At the moment, for some clubs the reason is the course is too short.  I don't buy it, but that is fine with me because there will always be some justification which will often be dodgy.    

Ciao

Sean,

Did you even read what I wrote? Are you claiming that someone is a hypocrite if they don't give up golf in order to complain about the ball?

You say that you don't believe the long ball has caused you any grief. Then why do you come to the States and complain about the cost of golf where you would like to play? As the ball get longer, the cost of golf goes up. It is as simple as that. You want us to believe it doesn't cause you any grief? Then don't make your complaints public.

Garland

I have made myself perfectly clear.  You have taken my argument off into Never Never Land. 

If you think the length of courses is the main reason for the price of golf, you have had too much mountain air.  First and foremost, the price of golf is a function of what the market will bear.  Length of courses is a minor issue in terms of green fees.   

Ciao

[Garland Bayley]

Garland

I have made myself perfectly clear.  You have taken my argument off into Never Never Land. 

If you think the length of courses is the main reason for the price of golf, you have had too much mountain air.  First and foremost, the price of golf is a function of what the market will bear.  Length of courses is a minor issue in terms of green fees.   

Ciao

As David has tried to point out to you, your argument was in Never Never Land long before I got a hold of it. I just though Never Never Land was an appropriate response for Never Never Land.

My home course is 6000 yards par 70. Are you telling me that a comparable course at 7000 yards would not need approximately 20% more in green fees? Also, notice that I did not say green fees. I said cost of golf! Are you telling me there would be zero increase in cart ridership when the course is lengthened? If cart ridership goes up, so does the cost to play when you average in the cart. Also so does the cost to play when you average in the added maintenance cost for more carts. Furthermore, with the cart option, GCAs spread courses out even more again raising the real estate and maintenance costs.

I at no point made any reference to length being the main reason for the cost of golf. Don't take my statements to Never Never Land.

Ciao

[Lou_Duran]

Bifurcation is beautiful.  Not perfect, but what is?

Does any one think that Tiger's Nike clubs are the same that we can pull off the rack?  The elite play a different game.  Let them.  I wouldn't even mind if they had their own courses.

[Brent Hutto]

I'm all for the Tour pros playing their own game but I have a feeling "bifurcation" might quickly trickle down to guys I actually play golf with on occasion. I'm pretty sure collegiate golf-team players, aspiring collegians at the high-school level and the guys who are competitive in state-level amateur events would all want to part of the "elite". Not sure about the next level down, those 1 to +2 handicappers who can break par on most courses but aren't quite on the big-time level.

[JMEvensky]

I'm all for the Tour pros playing their own game but I have a feeling "bifurcation" might quickly trickle down to guys I actually play golf with on occasion. I'm pretty sure collegiate golf-team players, aspiring collegians at the high-school level and the guys who are competitive in state-level amateur events would all want to part of the "elite". Not sure about the next level down, those 1 to +2 handicappers who can break par on most courses but aren't quite on the big-time level.

I agree about the "trickle down" part.

I think Rich Goodale once described it as "unification through bifurcation".(Apologies if I've misquoted)

[Lou_Duran]

Brent,

One of the great things about golf is that we can choose our companions and the games we play.  Club tournaments often have their own rules and the various flights play off different tees.  I am assuming that the sponsors can choose which ball is suitable for the level and purpose of the competition.

I am very much opposed to policies instituted to address the problems or needs of relatively small numbers or minorities that are then applied broadly.  If the problem is that a minority of golfers can generate clubhead speeds exceeding 115+ mph and hit the balls progidious distances, the goal should not be to also penalize those who are distance impaired.

BTW, if the goal is to rein back distance to reduce the advantage of long hitters and save the Classic courses from seemingly unintelligent owners, in the name of fairness, justice, and equity, should the greens be altered to offset the advantage of great putters and short game players?  Is this done with slower speeds and greater contour?    

[DMoriarty]

Lou,

I don't see bifurcation as a solution because the distance problem has trickled down into those who are good golfers but by no means good enough for a tour.  You have low to mid-single digit handicappers with a large range of swing speeds and therefore a huge distance gap between them.  Look at the numbers above.   The distance could easily be 60 to 80 yards off the tee for those with the same index.    It is very difficult to build a course that adequately interests and challenges golfers with large disparities in how far they hit the ball, and that problem will not change with bifurcation.

More importantly, I think your base assumption -- that slower swingers would necessarily be hurt by a a rolled back ball -- is incorrect.   slower swingers weren't helped much distance-wise by these new balls and there is no reason that the ball couldn't be rolled back so that aren't hurt much.   

I don't get your last paragraph at all.   Courses function better when the distance gap between long and short is more in line with what it has been historically, prior to this latest techno jump for some (but not for others.)  So it is a matter of balance.    All games have all sorts of balances and for the game to remain fun and interesting for all, it is important to keep it in balance.

[Brent Hutto]

So at some point the argument has not-so-subtly changed from:

The USGA allowed the manufacturers to produce balls with performance far beyond the historical limits they claim to enforce, resulting in ever-longer courses. Therefore, rolling back the golf ball to something akin to historical performance parameters will help arrest this trend which was fueled by ball improvements.

and now goes something like:

Today's best, strongest and most skilled players hit the ball so much harder than us pudgy middle-aged hackers (and harder than anyone was capable of hitting it a few decades ago) that something must be done to bring their distances back to only a modest increment beyond our own. This is best done by severely curtailing ball performance in a yet-to-be-invented manner that punishes high clubhead speed players while having minimal effect on hackers.

The first argument I can buy and in fact have a lot of sympathy toward. The second argument is complete bullshit.

[DMoriarty]

So at some point the argument has not-so-subtly changed from:

The USGA allowed the manufacturers to produce balls with performance far beyond the historical limits they claim to enforce, resulting in ever-longer courses. Therefore, rolling back the golf ball to something akin to historical performance parameters will help arrest this trend which was fueled by ball improvements.

and now goes something like:

Today's best, strongest and most skilled players hit the ball so much harder than us pudgy middle-aged hackers (and harder than anyone was capable of hitting it a few decades ago) that something must be done to bring their distances back to only a modest increment beyond our own. This is best done by severely curtailing ball performance in a yet-to-be-invented manner that punishes high clubhead speed players while having minimal effect on hackers.

The first argument I can buy and in fact have a lot of sympathy toward. The second argument is complete bullshit.

Brent,  I too think the second argument is complete bullshit.  Fortunately I think it only exists in your mind.   I still don't understand these outbursts of yours every couple of posts.  

[TEPaul]

"I seem to recall that we have previously debated this claim and the USGA Quintavalla study that says the claim is nonsense.  But, I thought I'd point out again that the study concluded:

"Actually, there is no extra distance "bonus" for high swing speeds.  This is true for the new tour balls, and  all others as well. In fact, distance does not even increase linearly (see below), but rather it starts to fall off slightly at higher swing speeds - just the opposite of the popular misconception  To be sure, hitting the ball faster means it goes longer; it's just that you don't get as much bang-for-the-buck at the highest speeds.""



Bryan:

What is the USGA Quintavalla study?

[Garland Bayley]

Bryan:

What is the USGA Quintavalla study?

...
The context of the USGA study was to settle the question of whether there was a disproportionate gain in distance at higher swing speeds.  The answer was no.  You, and others, can read the whole article if you wish for context at http://www.usga.org/news/2006/April/Speed-Vs--Distance--Do-Long-Hitters-Get-An-Unfair-Benefit-/
...

The study really does not address what we are discussing here.

David's response is that the USGA doesn't get it.
The other choice would be that the USGA is trying to obfuscate the issue. The cynical will draw that conclusion.

[Bryan Izatt]

Bryan,

It appears your quoted study is irrelevant to what we are discussing here. It is a comparison of slow swinging tour pros with fast swinging tour pros.

It conveniently neglects to point out that if you plot distance against swing speed for the high spinning ball and distance against swing speed for the low spinning ball, that the lines cross. They cross at a point well below the slow swinging tour pro's swing speed.

......................


I thought it was relevant to David's original point.  I see he has clarified his point for me.

It does prove that there is no disproportionate gain for the modern ball as swing speed increases.  It does not prove/disprove that there was a disproportionate gain between for high swing speeds between a 1990's ball vs a 2000's ball.

Do you have any quantitative study that you could point me to, or post here, that demonstrates the crossing lines theory that you state above?  Or is this just your anecdotal feeling?  I am prepared to accept that this is the case, but I've never seen a study that demonstrates it.  I assume that your reference to high spinning and low spinning balls are to the 1990's Tour Balata and Pro V1 respectively.  Or did you have some other balls in mind?  Not all balls in the 90's or in the '00's are uniformly high spinning or low spinning.

[Garland Bayley]

Bryan,

It appears your quoted study is irrelevant to what we are discussing here. It is a comparison of slow swinging tour pros with fast swinging tour pros.

It conveniently neglects to point out that if you plot distance against swing speed for the high spinning ball and distance against swing speed for the low spinning ball, that the lines cross. They cross at a point well below the slow swinging tour pro's swing speed.

......................


I thought it was relevant to David's original point.  I see he has clarified his point for me.

It does prove that there is no disproportionate gain for the modern ball as swing speed increases.  It does not prove/disprove that there was a disproportionate gain between for high swing speeds between a 1990's ball vs a 2000's ball.

Do you have any quantitative study that you could point me to, or post here, that demonstrates the crossing lines theory that you state above?  Or is this just your anecdotal feeling?  I am prepared to accept that this is the case, but I've never seen a study that demonstrates it.  I assume that your reference to high spinning and low spinning balls are to the 1990's Tour Balata and Pro V1 respectively.  Or did you have some other balls in mind?  Not all balls in the 90's or in the '00's are uniformly high spinning or low spinning.

Brian,

One of my major sources for information like this is Tom Wishon's The Search for the Perfect Golf Club. Unfortunately, I don't have it available now.

You are right. I am referring to Tour Balata vs ProV1. Tom Paul has reported on this website that the USGA told him that tour pros would lose approximately 25 yards if they were forced back to the Tour Balata.

I will do some searching to see if I can come up with more concrete data.

[Melvyn Morrow]

The gutta percha ball stabilised the game in the 1850 and ran until the Haskell in the late 1890’s. Why not just roll back the ball to that of the gutta era. Perhaps to please some make it slightly easier to get airborne. Or at the very least use the Gutta as the starting point for distance limitations. Want to play golf then play golf using modern technology but to the distance parameters set by the Gutta percha ball. That should raise a challenge, retain our current courses, reduce some of the long modern course and bring back into play the ability to have 36 holes in a day without the need to start a 6.30AM. That should also please the manufacturers, as they will be able to resupply all with new clubs and ball without ruining our existing courses. All are happy and we the ordinary golfers still have to pay for it all, but this time just our replacement clubs and ball.

However, will it happen with our current Governing Bodies. I feel we could be heading for a revolution, a golfing revolution, if only we all could agree to unite on this issue..

Melvyn   

[Bryan Izatt]

Bryan,

We have discussed it before, and I don't have time to get into it in great detail right now, but I will try to later.

The USGA study established nothing more than that they themselves have no concept of the problem that the new balls have created for golf. They set up then disproved a few overly simplistic claims, but in the process they completely ignored the real problem.    

In essence, the USGA proved what most high school physics students could probably guess at.   For a particular golf ball the distance gained by increasing swing speed from 110 to 120 mph will be less than the distance gained by increasing the swing speed from 100 to 110 mph.  

So, for example, BALL A gained about 34 yards when swing speed was increased from 90 to 100 mph, and about 31 yards from 100 to 110 mph, and increased just under 25 yards when swing speed increased from 110 yards to 120 mph.    So, FOR A PARTICULAR BALL, incremental increases in swing speed DO NOT result in disproportionate increases in distance gained.   Fine.  That makes perfect sense.   It is not accurate to say that the ProV1x suddenly is activated at 110 mph.    

However, this entirely misses the issue.   As understand it, the issue is:  DOES THE NEW BALL TECHNOLOGY DISPROPORTIONALLY BENEFIT THOSE WITH FASTER SWING SPEEDS?  The answer is YES.  

[I know some of you are thinking  But you just agreed with the usga that the answer is "No."   I haven't.   It is difficult to understand (apparently too difficult for the USGA) but the study and result above doesn't even address this issue.]

In order to figure this out we must compare driving distances of the new balls at various swing speeds with BALLS WHICH WERE STATE OF THE ART BEFORE THE INTRODUCTION OF THESE NEW BALLS.   That way we can look at who has benefited from these balls and who has not.  Also, we need to keep in mind that, for most golfers, swing speeds can't go much higher.   I can't rev my swing speed up to 120.    What matters for me is, "With my swing speed, does the ProV1x go further than what I could have bought before."  The answer is obviously NO.
________________________________________

A hypothetical using three balls and three golfers, and two jumps in ball distance technology . . .  
The BALLS:  the PRE (representing the state of the art before the first tech jump, when new balls took over), the V (representing the first generation of these new balls), and the X (representing the second generation fo these new balls.)  
The GOLFERS:  EIGHTY, HUNDRED, and ONE-TWENTY, named after their swing speed.
- EIGHTY hits the PRE farther than the V and a lot farther than the X.

- HUNDRED hits V a lot farther than the PRE and farther than the X.  

- ONE-TWENTY hits the X a lot farther than both the PRE and the V.  

What has the technological boom done for EIGHTY's driving distance?  NOTHING.  The first tech bump hurt EIGHTY relative to the others, and the second bump hurt him more.   (If he can no longer find a ball similar to the PRE and must play something like X or V, then his actual driving distance decreases in real terms, and his relative disadvantage to the others grows even greater.)

What has the technological boom done for HUNDRED's driving distance?    The first tech bump gave HUNDRED a disproportionate advantage over EIGHTY, compared to where they were before.  (But the second Tech bump put him at a relative disadvantage to ONE-TWENTY.

What has the technological boom done for ONE-TWENTY?  Relative to the state of the art before the advance, ONE-TWENTY HAS REAPED BIG BENEFITS over the other two.

So if PRE has gotten no benefit from the technological advances, and ONE-TWENTY has reaped huge benefits, then how can the USGA say that "there is no extra distance bonus for high swing speeds."    Well, they can't at least not if they want to correctly state the current circumstance.   But the reason that they do so is that their study was asking the WRONG QUESTIONS.  

The USGA focused on how each particular ball behaved as swing speed increased without COMPARING HOW NEW BALLS BEHAVED COMPARED TO OLD BALLS.     So, the USGA told EIGHTY, HUNDRED, AND ONE-TWENTY that if they ALL PLAY THE ProVIx, the distance difference between HUNDRED'S drive and EIGHTY's drive will be slightly larger than the distance difference between ONE-TWENTY's drive and HUNDRED's drive.    But if I am EIGHTY that is of little comfort, because if I PLAY THE ProV1x then I take a huge hit to my distance compared to what it was before! I lose ground while they gain ground, because I don't swing fast enough for the ball to work for me at all.   And it sure is heck seems like they have received a distance dividend that has passed me by.

_____________________________

The USGA's own numbers more than hint at this glitch in their study.   From 90 to 100 mph, the distance increases 34 yards, or 3.4 yards per mph.   As we go down in speed we will lose slightly more distance per mph (this is the corollary of gaining less distance as swingspeed goes up. So when we drop from 90 to 80 we lose more than 34 yards, and if we drop to 70 mph we lose at least 102 yards and probably a bit more.  

According to the study, the distance of BALL A at 90 mph swing speed was about 220 yards.   So for the 80 mph swing speed, the distance is less than 186 yards, total driving distance.   For the 70 mph swinger, the total distance is less than 153 yards.    AND THESE NUMBERS ARE PROBABLY TOO LONG, BECAUSE THE USGA HAS PROVEN THAT INCREASE IN DISTANCE PER INCREASE IN MPH TAPERS OFF AS THE NUMBERS GET HIGHER (THEREFORE THE DECREASE MUST GROW AS SWINGSPEED DECREASES.

Does anyone think that someone with an 80 mph or 70 mph swing speed has gotten any more distance out of the technology behind this ball?   Even the golfer with a 90 mph swing speed is only driving it just over 220 yards total with this technologically advanced ball.   Meanwhile those with swinging it 125 mph are hitting it 320.   So a golfer with a swing speed of 90 (which used to be a respectable swing speed) is almost 100 yards behind those with faster swing speeds.    

I don't have great numbers for the old balls, but I think I may have some somewhere and I'll try to find them later.  

NOTE:  EDITED TO CORRECT SOME ERRORS IN THE NUMBERS.

David,

Forgive me if there are later posts that modify this post.  I understand the distinction that you are making about where the "disproportionate" gain is.  The issue I have is that your assertions are both vague and general.  You don't specify what before and after balls you are comparing when you say the slopes of the lines are different.  Nor do you quantify the specific difference in the slopes.  You imply that they are significant, but what is significant?  I'll ask you the same as I asked Garland, do you have any controlled study that you've seen that demonstrates the difference in slopes?

I'd also question your statement (that I've highlighted in red above) that you took a huge hit in distance going to a Pro V1.  How huge a hit did you take?  What ball were you using before?  I've never heard anyone assert before that they lost distance with the Pro V1.

[Lou_Duran]

Lou,

I don't see bifurcation as a solution because the distance problem has trickled down into those who are good golfers but by no means good enough for a tour.  You have low to mid-single digit handicappers with a large range of swing speeds and therefore a huge distance gap between them.  Look at the numbers above.   The distance could easily be 60 to 80 yards off the tee for those with the same index.    It is very difficult to build a course that adequately interests and challenges golfers with large disparities in how far they hit the ball, and that problem will not change with bifurcation.

More importantly, I think your base assumption -- that slower swingers would necessarily be hurt by a a rolled back ball -- is incorrect.   slower swingers weren't helped much distance-wise by these new balls and there is no reason that the ball couldn't be rolled back so that aren't hurt much.   

I don't get your last paragraph at all.   Courses function better when the distance gap between long and short is more in line with what it has been historically, prior to this latest techno jump for some (but not for others.)  So it is a matter of balance.    All games have all sorts of balances and for the game to remain fun and interesting for all, it is important to keep it in balance.

DM,

In reality I am not a big fan of bifurcation either, though I support it because I believe there is a problem and it appears to be the least bad solution.  My view of golf is perhaps a bit more expansive as I think the economics of this sport are critical and unique, and the constituency very diverse.  In my opinion, it is impossible to design and maintain a course that's suitable to all, and I see no major problem in building the Santa Anitas and the Sherwoods of this world.

There is no question that the current ball and club technology rewards swing speed exponentially, and, in my mind at least, that it would be better if the advantage was more arithmetic.  I've been complaining that as I've gotten older the atrophy of my body has been much faster than the advancement of golf techonlogy available to me.  Those young guys I used to keep up with and even outdrive on occasion are now hiting it a Walmart further ahead of me.  It would be better if when I am playing with them that we would all use the bifurcated "elite" ball, and I suspect that I could shame them into using it on the basis of being more sporting.  But if these guys want to play homerun derby and are willing to make certain allocations to me, I might just let them pull the new ProV1X.   I can see how bifurcation might make things a bit dicey for the tournament committee at local and club competitions (my solution: championship flight plays the "elite", everyone else plays whatever they want).

As to the short game comments, you are probably right, technology has not had that big of an impact, though perhaps the long putter may have given the less able putter a new advantage.  Maybe I am grasping at an excuse to slow greens down a bit and maybe introduce just a tad more contour.



 

 

[Jud_T]

Melvyn,

I will only dress like this if I can drink as much as was consumed during the period as well...

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()