[Ken Moum]

I say it's the modern driver coupled with extrememly fast clubhead speed that's the major culprit. The ball was 'hot' in the 70s and once it was linked to a softer cover, akaPROV!, the best players showed what could be done with it. 

I have believed for some time that the biggest difference is that the modern tour-quality ball is SO much easier for good players to hit straight (esp. with a 460cc driver) that they are able to use a much higher percentage of their available clubhead speed.

You can run across stories of old-time pros hitting the ball prodigious distances in driving competitions, but during tournamentss they backed off to keep the ball in play.

Today's players just don't have to back off as much.

Which is why I think a lighter ball is the answer.  And, according to this patent, would actually help the shortest hitters a bit.  See: http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/5497996/description.html

Ken

[Bryan Izatt]

Mike,

One of the old debates on here was the relative gains in distance using the new balls vs balata balls for slow speed swingers vs high speed swingers.  For any given ball there was an expectation that the increase in driving distance should be linear with swing speed.  Using Jason's 2.5 yards per m.p.h increase in clubhead speed, if an 85 mph swinger hits it 200 yards then a 125 yard swinger should hit it 300 yards.  The argument was that with the old balata balls the increase in distance might have been 2 yards per mph, not 2.5 yards per mph as it is with modern balls.  Assuming the 85 mph swinger hits it 200 yards with either ball, then the argument was that the faster swingers only hit it 280 yards with the balata ball, not the 300 they hit it with the Pro V1's of the world.

An interesting experiment, if you could line up 5 guys with swing speeds of 85, 95, 105, 115 and 125 mph and have them hit the old balls and new balls, we could see whether there is indeed a disproportionate improvement in distance with the new balls compared with the balata balls.  

[Chris Kane]

Mike,

The difference between the ProV1 and older balls might not be significant in perfect conditions, but I'd be very interested to hear whether a ProV1 outperforms a balata or Tour Prestige in strong winds. I always got the sense that the ProV1 went through the wind so much better than the balls which came before it.

[DMoriarty]

Pat,

So is the ball the problem we think it is - or is it the club? Or the combination of the two.

Mike,

I think it may be the ball when combined with really high club speeds.   To try and follow up on what Bryan Izatt wrote above, I believe that the newer Pro V1x type balls gain relatively more in distance per incremental increase in clubhead speed.   I think the inverse is also true; an incremental decrease in swing speed will result in a relatively larger decrease in distance.  

So if we compared the two balls we might come up with a graph looking something like the one below, with the green line representing a hypothetical old technology ball, and the red line representing a hypothetical proVIx type ball.  



Where the lines cross (around 108 mph swing speed in this hypothetical) there is NO relative benefit to the proV1x type ball.  As swing speed increases above this point the relative distance gain also increases.  For those with slower swing speeds, the new ball would actually be a detriment-- they would be better off with the old ball.

I am interested to hear what happens with Geoff Ogilvy takes a swipe.    I would suspect that the distance gap between the balls will grow as swing speed increases.  Likewise, you could fly me down to test the balls at a slower swing speed.  My guess is that I would hit the old ball farther than the new ball.    (Alternatively you could probably find someone there with a slow swing speed, but flying me down seems more reasonable to me.)

[I should note that when I made up this chart (about four or five years ago) I was actually thinking of two newer type balls such as the ProV1 vs. ProV1x).    For an older ball vs. a ProV1x type ball, I'd expect the fulcrum point to be at a much slower swing speed, probably mid-90s.

I should also not again that the graph is hypothetical and for demonstrative purposes only.  It is also simplified -- both lines would actually taper off somewhat at very high swing speeds, but that is not relevant to what I am trying to demonstrate.]

Does that make sense with what you are seeing with these balls?    Does it help explain why the distance gap might not be what you thought it would be?

[TEPaul]

MikeC:

I have no idea why those Pro Traj balls you used were smaller but as to why you didn't notice much difference in distance and particularly in carry distance between them and the Pro V1 is probably due to the fact those Pro Traj balls were relatively low in spin rate as are the Pro V1s (Jim Kennedy quoted that the Pro Trajs were 2,900 rpm) compared to most of the old balata and softer balls of the old days.  

I believe the older softer balata balls that most all good players used had a spin rates of 3,300-3,600+.

So what does that mean as far as distance or carry distance is conerned when one factors in club-head speeds?

I believe when those higher spin rate balls were hit around 105-110MPH and up they generally had so much initial spin rate that it created drag behind the ball for a brief distance (like up to 100 yards) and time after impact that actually served to keep their trajectory down and lowish until that drag had dissipated at which point they tended to launch upward something like a Lear jet taking off.

If you recall that was the basic trajectory that most all high swing speed players created with those higher spin rate balls and the tech centers of the world apparently confirm that that particular trajectory can and did cost those higher swing speed players from 20-35 yards in carry distance compared to the trajectory they have with the new age balls (Pro V1s et al) with their considerably lower rpm at comparable swing speeds.

By the way, a golf balls rpms is something I don't believe any rules and regs of the two primary I&B regulators (the USGA and R&A) have ever regulated. There are basically five factors that are regulated with conforming golf balls and rpm is not one of those factors.

Should they look into regulating it with either a high or particular low limitation? Personally, I think so as it very well may serve to solve some of the problems created in distance increase for some players in the last 10-20 years.

[Matthew Mollica]

The aspect of ball spin rate is very pertinent to this discussion.

David, in your post you suggest there is a distance "cost" (to paraphrase) when a slow swinger uses a ProV1X or similar ball.
This may be so, but the low spin rate of this ball is likely to see an imperfect strike produce a straighter ball flight than it would have resulted in, if using a higher spin ball. The benefit of that cannot be understated, and IMHO may exceed the value of distance gains.

Tom,

Fascinating point regarding regulation of a ball's revolutions per minute. I too am unaware that any regulation has been considered with regard to maximum and minimum spin rates.

Can a ball's RPM's be determined easily and reliably?

It would be very interesting to perform some study of the balls Mike Clayton wishes to use for his next little experiment.

MM

[John_Conley]

I mentioned this thread to a friend in his mid-60s and here are his thoughts, fwiw.

==

John,

I tried to log on as a guest but they didn't accept my e-mail. 

In 1978 I won both qualifiers for the national long drive with 353yds on Cap Cod and 322yds in Boston, both with the balata ball, a 43" steel shaft, wooden driver and 133mph swing speed.  At that time the only reason a balata felt soft was if you had been playing a "rockflite" by Spaulding.  Nobody knew the difference.

Now we realize the 1.68 balata ball was soft, stayed on the clubface longer and it would spin a lot.  The  British 1.62 did not stay on the face as long, was a "BB" off the face but did go longer.  I played it in the Izod International Pro-Am at Teeth of the Dog in the Dominican Republic.  From that time thru 2002 it was a 1-1 relationship of swing speed created more distance. 

At the 2003 at the US Senior Open I asked Jim Albus, (who was always long) why he was not playing the new Black Callaway, instead of the Red or Blue. He said his swing speed was not high enough (115) to create the compression necessary to gain the additional distance built into the ball. 

I asked the Callaway rep for the Black ball but said he could only give them to professionals so I got the Red's.  Tom Purtzer played the Black and he beat me on the long drive stats for Thursday and Friday rounds 304 to 297.5.  That was the first time I remember hearing that more distance was built into the ball if you could get to the swing speed necessary to take advantage
If they removed the MOI, (rebound effect) from the clubs, made the ball spin and STOP making the fairways like concrete so the ball runs 40-70 yards it would back off the swings to 80-85% like the old days, to keep the ball in play.  Then the golf announcer typical lie "look how far he hit that ball, these guys are all bigger stronger, etc, etc", would be a thing of the past and ball strikers instead of gougers would win more events.

[Jim Eder]

Thanks to all for the great insights. For me, the new ProV1 goes further than the old balatas. I noticed the "lear jet" effect that was mentioned. At first I thought it was just better technology for everyone (I was using old clubs and new clubs with the balls). Then I thought it was a "shelf life" issue (not being an aerospace engineer) in my case. The ball spin issue make a lot of sense as I do have a higher swing speed.  Fascinating thread and very helpful in my understanding. Thanks to all!!

[Richard Choi]

I believe when those higher spin rate balls were hit around 105-100MPH and up they generally had so much initial spin rate that it created drag behind the ball for a brief distance (like up to 100 yards) and time after impact that actually served to keep their trajectory down and lowish until that drag had dissipated at which point they tended to launch upward something like a Lear jet taking off.

This is not true.

There is no additional drag due to the spin rate because whatever drag caused by ball spinning into the direction would be negated by the ball spinning away from the direction on the otherside. And most of the drag on the ball is negated by the boundary layer created by the dimples. What it does cause is a Magnus Effect which lifts the ball in the air.

The reason why you saw a late upward launch in a high spinning ball is because all accelerations are parabola in shape which means it has a flatter trajectory in the beginning then it get steeper as the acceleration increases the velocity, and more spin you have, the sharper the curve will be. This is also why curve balls have very late breaking motion.

This is a problem if you want to hit long because a lot of the energy is being converted to the vertical motion which means ball is more susceptible to head wind and drag. This is why you want the combination of low spin and high launch angle for the maximum distance.

[Peter Pallotta]

John C - please thank your friend for the excellent post. I hope he joins us here soon - I love the perspective of a top level player, especially one who was already there in the days of persimmon and is still hitting it today.

Peter

[TEPaul]

"The reason why you saw a late upward launch in a high spinning ball is because all accelerations are parabola in shape which means it has a flatter trajectory in the beginning then it get steeper as the acceleration increases the velocity, and more spin you have, the sharper the curve will be. This is also why curve balls have very late breaking motion."


Richard Choi:

That very well may be and it may not be the effect of excessive "drag" by only the high swing speed player; I'm definitely no physcist.

However, that particular trajectory with the high spinning balls was something I only saw from the high swing speed players and according to the tech center that trajectory at say a swing speed that produces distance around the ODS limitation can lose a player up to app 30+ yards in carry distance compared to the trajectory of the much lower spinning new age golf balls.

[Richard Choi]

Yes, that is correct. As I have mentioned, more spin you have, sharper the climb will be because of the higher Magnus Effect. Having more spin is like having a bigger wing on an aircraft and you will be able to go higher. The same effect is there with the lower spinning ball as well, but you just don't see as much acceleration because of the less lift involved.

And when you have a very high spin, that means that a lot of the energy generated by the clubhead is not being converted to the forward motion (and into spin instead) which is why you lose carry distance. But you lose just as much, if not more, on roll distance as well because of the very sharp landing angle.

[DMoriarty]

David, in your post you suggest there is a distance "cost" (to paraphrase) when a slow swinger uses a ProV1X or similar ball.
This may be so, but the low spin rate of this ball is likely to see an imperfect strike produce a straighter ball flight than it would have resulted in, if using a higher spin ball. The benefit of that cannot be understated, and IMHO may exceed the value of distance gains.

Matthew,  While I do agree that the new technology ball will spin less on imperfect strikes, you seem to be assuming that the slow swinger will necessarily produce a more imperfect strikes and I don't agree with this.   Also did you mean to say The benefit of that cannot be overstated?

Anyway, I think the value of losing the spin can be overstated for a slow swing speed player, and is often overstated.   Slower swing players need the spin to get the lift to get the distance.   As for mishits, I don't think it matters much whether your ball fades or hooks if it is difficult to even keep in the air.  

_____________________________________________________

John Conley

I too thank your friend for commenting.  Very interesting.  

I noticed that he mentioned that Jim Albus said that "his swing speed was not high enough (115) to create the compression necessary to gain the additional distance built into the ball. "

This is what I was talking about above.  Only those with very high swing speeds can reap the benefit of some of these balls, relative to older balls.   But the same thing happens with the next level down and impacts many more players.    Just as only those with the highest swing-speeds benefit from the ProV1x type ball, only those with at least pretty high swing speeds benefit from the ProV1 type ball.   When it comes to driving distance, the vast majority of golfers of us would be better off playing Balatas as with this new stuff.

Speaking of which . . .  

_______________________________

Some of you may remember that I tried to figure this stuff out a number of years ago.   I used what I will call The Latex Lynn, a "golf machine" with a swing-speed in the mid 90 mph range, index around 2 or 3. This Latex Lynn hit 50 drives, half with the ProV1x and half with the  Tour Balatas .  I intermixed and teed the balls, recorded the results, then threw out worst 5 from each group.     Even though the balatas were probably 6 years old, Lynn's drives were longer with the Balatas.   Three to four yards longer.  

[TEPaul]

John Conley:

Those are some interesting comments of your "friend." As you relate them it looks like there are a number of things to consider and question.

The thing I have always felt is so interesting about these kinds of threads is that a number of the contributors think they can figure all this out on here with some Internet application tools or whatever or perhaps some knowledge of science or pyshics. I say perhaps they should defer to the multi-million dollar investment and expertise of an entity devoted specifically to these golf questions such as the USGA Implements and Balls Test Facility.  

By the way, it's interesting to me that you mention Jim Albus. What a good guy he is. He was the last pro to come to us at Piping Rock when I was around there just after Tom Nieporte left to go to Winged Foot.

I remember the first time Jim Albus came to us at Piping Rock. He went down to those side by side old polo fields that was and is the practice range and stated that he could hit a drive to the end of both no problem. He hit a bunch and he wasn't even close!

Also, by the way, your "friend" may not be right about the old "rock" and the fact it was only Spalding's. My Dad worked for Spalding for about fifteen years (I think in the 1950s and 1960s) and they were only one of a number of manufacturers who were into the revolutionary "two piece" hard core ball that came to be know as the "rock." The reason it was made basically had nothing much to do with distance even if some of the manufacturers may've advertized it that way which they generally did with any golf ball. ( I will never forget my father who worked for a golf club and ball manufacturer saying that 95% of what those companies advertized was bullshit! And if anyone knew the truth about those manufacturers he sure was in the position to know the truth and not to even mention he was a national caliber amateur tournament player who basically knew all the tournament players in the game, both amateurs and professionals and men and women in both).

I doubt there are many on this website today who remember why the two piece golf balls with the hard covers that came to be known as "rocks" were considered to be so revolutionary and such an advancement in golf.

[John_Conley]

Tom, no need for the quotes around friend.  We met fifteen years ago at a 4-Ball and have been golfing buddies and friends ever since.

I copied his e-mail to me verbatim.  Believe me, I'll be asking him where I need to go to get that kind of roll.

[TEPaul]

John:

There are just a few things you said about what your friend related to you that I have questions about. I hope neither of you have a problem with that. Do you? I'm in my 60s too and I have a pretty good memory and I also saw a ton of really good players back then. I wasn't that much into golf back then but my father sure was and those guys and gals (the best ams and pros in the country) were his friends and around all the time. It was his life.

I sure do remember back then though how much things seemed to be changing in golf and with equipment and the people my Dad knew so well were fascinated by it all; they were always looking for an edge somehow.

One of the interesting things about me and my mentality and maybe my family too is we are total squirrels-----eg we never throw anything out. I have everything my father ever owned from golf----all his equipment, aids, balls, clubs whatever and it's all up in my attic. It fills it actually.

It is definitely times like this I really miss him as if he were still here I could ask him some of these questions about the details of that era and he sure would know the answers a whole lot better than anyone on this website today since he was in the business and he sure was a player back then.

And by the way, your friend said he had a swing speed of 133mph. I hope you realize how high that really is!  

[DMoriarty]

The thing I have always felt is so interesting about these kinds of threads is that a number of the contributors think they can figure all this out on here with some Internet application tools or whatever or perhaps some knowledge of science or pyshics. I say perhaps they should defer to the multi-million dollar investment and expertise of an entity devoted specifically to these golf questions such as the USGA Implements and Balls Test Facility.  

Tom,

Cut with the passive-aggressive nonsense and say what you want to say.   The fact is "that a number of contributors" have had this stuff pretty much figured out for close to a decade, while the USGA and the USGApologists have missed the ball, so to speak. Until very recently, they've never even shown any sort of real grasp that a problem even exists!    

[TEPaul]

David:

And now I believe I remember very clearly both when it was and why it was the two of us came to not see eye to eye and probably had a falling out on here.

I thought it may've been over Merion but I think it preceded that discussion and subject by some time. I think it was this subject and issue. Those discussions are back there in the back pages somewhere, I guess, but I will take the opinions and the expertise of the people I know in the USGA and particularly the scientitsts in the USGA's Tech Center ANY DAY over your opinions and pronouncements and your little Internet applications and graphs and such on I&B, its history, its present status and its future.

Something you just said triggered my memory----eg 'the USGA and the USGA aplogists.'  

[Jason Topp]

[quote author=TEPaul link=topic=46393.msg1026433#msg1026433 date=

I doubt there are many on this website today who remember why the two piece golf balls with the hard covers that came to be known as "rocks" were considered to be so revolutionary and such an advancement in golf.
[/quote]

I liked them because they did not cut. One thin shot and balatas were toast.

[John_Conley]

I liked them because they did not cut. One thin shot and balatas were toast.

My dad, love him, was not a good golfer.  Surlyn covers were a blessing for him.  When I was a little kid I'd find balls on his dresser with "smiles". 

[DMoriarty]

Tom Paul, you are correct that our disagreement about these technology issues goes back many years and probably predates our disagreements about Merion.   That ought to tell you something about how effective your buddies at the USGA have been when it comes to understanding and dealing with the technology problem.

[TEPaul]

Jason:

Back then, that was essentially IT----end of story. They didn't know or think much more about it back then than just that.

The fact is those "no cut" low spin balls (the "rocks") were probably the least beneficial for distance for low swing speed players and on the other side of the physics ledger the high spin balls were probably the least beneficial for distance for the high swing speed players. Therefore, the supreme irony was both ends of the player level spectrum played the wrong ball for them for distance enhancement for a number of decades because basically for decades no good players used rocks and no high handicappers used softer high spin rate balls!

Many people, even in the business like my father never thought the twain would meet but it finally did with the "new age" golf ball that finally begun to come in around the 1990s which combined a lower spin rate with a less hard "feel." I guess the moral and message is to never underestimate the power of science and progress.

I also remember when the USGA and R&A were trying to unify their Rules of Golf (1951-52) my father said there was no way they would ever agree to do it. But they did!

[TEPaul]

"That ought to tell you something about how effective your buddies at the USGA have been when it comes to understanding and dealing with the technology problem."




It is always interesting, David Moriarty, to listen to someone like you who only can and only does analyze something in retrospect! I suppose that's perhaps the only reason being a lot older than you has some benefit. But, thanks again, now I do remember why you and I ran afoul of one another for the first time and why it apparently continued on into your campaign with Merion that became such a joke to so many.

Quite the interesting saga altogether, actually. I'm glad it came clear again on this same subject and thread from back then many years ago now.

Perhaps you may want to try making arrangements with and personally visit the USGA Tech Center and getting to know some of the scientists there to do a bit of first hand research with them as you should have done with Merion or MCC and its experts and historians before you wrote and put on here that half-baked essay of yours.

[DMoriarty]

I only analyze this stuff in retrospect?  I am not even sure what that means.  While I have hardly been the most outspoken, eloquent or persuasive, there have been quite a number of us who have been discussing this technology issue in real time for a decade or more.   In contrast, the USGApologists like yourself have been assuring us for years that the USGA was on top of the issue and would fix everything any minute.   It turned out that until very recently the USGA didn't even understand the nature of the problem with the ball (assuming they do now.)

As for my essay on Merion, Tom, thanks for the continuing insults.   But I think you might considering dropping this notion that it was  "half-baked."  Unless you were lying to all of us about these alleged Lloyd letters, even you must know realize that about everything in my essay was and is correct.

But why are you trying to turn this website into another Merion thread?  You refuse to answer the simplest questions about your claims in the Merion thread, and then go around ruining the threads that have nothing to do with Merion?   Now why is that?  

[Brent Hutto]

The USGA manifestly dropped the ball, so to speak, for a couple of decades. So if they're on top of the issue today that's a relatively recent development.

That said, posting a graph with two arbitrary lines drawn on it and referring to it as though it has any relationship to the real world is silly. The folks with the numbers aren't talking (at least not talking to anyone who has seen fit to share the data publically) but that doesn't mean that just anyone who dreams up their own hypothetical ball characteristics should be accepted as having the answers all figured out.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()