"TEPaul,
Had the USGA limited their conclusions to the very narrow results of their tests, I'd have no problem with either. But that isn't what happened. Rather, the USGA asked if "modern golf balls used on the PGA Tour give an unfair distance advantage to players with very high swing speeds." Their conclusion was a resounding "No:"
David Moriarty:
That is exactly what Steve Quintavalla's 2006 report did----eg limit its CONCLUSIONS to golf balls actually tested and statistically reported. They were all "new age" balls and he said so in his report by stating that by the 2000---2005 timeframes wound ball technology essentially no longer existed or was not used any longer by those in that particular test set---PGA Tour. And the test results he reported on showed no distance "bonus" along a linear axis of increasing swing speeds increments (90mph to 130mph) to players with higher or highest swings speeds. The tests and his report mentioned actually something of the opposite----eg higher and highest swing speeds in the test recorded diminishing distance production along that linear axis as swing speeds increased compared to the lower swing speed set.
"Unfortunately, the tests they performed by no means supported the broad conclusions they reached."
Again, the TESTS they performed in that Quintavalla 2006 report did support the CONCLUSIONS Quintavalla's report reached.
"The distance "bonus" can't be seen by looking at the performance of a the modern ball at different swing speeds, but rather by looking at the performance of the old state of the art balls versus the new state of the art balls at different swing speeds."
If tests were conducted and a report on them written analyzing "new age" ball technology and the old wound ball technology that most every good and high swing speed player used to use and that was used to analyze and compare the distance differential between low and high swing speed players it would apparently invariably show that the higher and highest swing speed set suffered a distinct loss in distance with the old wound ball technology when a linear axis is considered across that swing speed spectrum, and even probably including compared to the balls the lower swing speed set used to use which was almost unversally not the wound ball technology, and very possibly was not even the best ball technology for the lower swing speed set for distance production.
Perhaps you think that was "fair" although I'm certainly not sure why, and particularly when you consider Quintavalla's tests and report that also shows there is no distance "bonus" along that linear axis of swing speed increments when most all golfers are now, and for the first time in a number of decades, using balls of the same ball technology rather than two distinctly different types of ball technology as had been true from approximately the late 1960s until perhaps around 2000.
However, I am certainly willing to acknowledge and admit that you may not be aware of this historic reality with ball technology and performance characteristics or for some reason you do appreciate its significance in this over-all distance differential issue between low and high swing speed players. This might be the primary reason for your confusion and for what you have been saying for some years now on this issue.
My suggestion would be to consider very carefully first what golfers and golf I&B scientists who lived and played through this entire timeframe (arguably from the late 1960s until to date) and observed it and analyzed it all directly have to say about it.