The entire history of significant distance increases.....

[TEPaul]

…..and and its effects on golf and golf architecture!?

We have certainly gotten into discussing and arguing over the relatively recent distance increase (perhaps the mid 1980s to date), particularly amongst high swing speed players----what caused it, how, why etc, etc.

However, I don’t know that we have ever had a thread and discussion about all the significant chances in ball and club technology in the history of golf, when they happened, what they were, what their affects were on golf and architecture, how and how well golf and golf architecture survived those significant technology changes and distance increases----or not.

What were those significant ball and technology changes/distance increases in golf’s entire history, and perhaps more importantly, have we seen one or two of those significant ball and club technology changes in recent times (in approximately the last 10-40 years).

In my lifetime I think we have seen two significant ball technology changes (I’m 66 and I’ve been watching golf and I&B pretty closely for the last fifty years).

1. The invention and common use in play in the 1960s and 1970s of the surlyn covered two-piece solid ball that did not cut.
2. The invention and common use in play of the so-called “new age” multi-layer solid ball that combined some of the soft feel of the easily cut old “wound” ball technology with the lower spin-rate distance characteristics of #1 (the two-piece solid ball, sometimes referred to in the 1960s to 1990s as the “rock”).

It should be noted that the ball technology of most of the 20th century before the invention and common use of the no cut surlyn covered two piece solid ball was the easily cut “wound” ball technology that began in 1898 with the invention of the so-called Haskell ball. It should also be noted that at the US Open level this “wound” technology lasted in play through the invention of the “new-age” ball (a multi-layer solid ball with lower spin rate and a softer feel) until about 2001.

In the entire history of golf, the significant changes in I&B technology and perhaps distance increase would probably look like this.

1.   Conversion from staffs and sticks and wooden balls in the beginning of golf (15th century) to the use of the featherie and perhaps hand-made wooden golf clubs.
2.   Conversion to the gutta percha ball with wooden clubs with a consequent distance increase.
3.   Conversion to the “wound” ball technology at the beginning of the 20th century with a significant distance increase for all players and swing speeds. At this point, the two administrative and regulatory associations of golf (R&A and USGA) began to think about and began to legislate I&B rules and regulations for golf’s I&B.
4.   In the 1920s and 1930s the development of standardizations in ball size and weight and the onset of metal shaft technology with perhaps a consequent distance increase for all swing speed levels.
5.   1942---the beginning of USGA testing to establish ball distance rules and regulations and distance limitations.
6.   1980s---the beginning of use in play of metal woods and size and weight considerations including the first appearance of COR considerations with perhaps a consequent distance increase for all swing speed levels.

With all this we should consider that comprehensive I&B testing and rules and regulations on balls and clubs is relatively recent given the entire history of golf. How do you think it should’ve been done differently in the 20th century? How do you think the two associations that test and regulate golf’s I&B (R&A and USGA) should go about it from here on?

[TEPaul]

Richard Choi kindly IMed me what he thinks is a really cool golf ball trajectory simulation applet he feels may be useful. You should link it on here, Richard, to allow those on this website who are technically and scientifically minded to fool around with it to see what they can come up with. Who knows, there may even be one or a few on here who actually think they can teach the USGA's I&B Test Center a few things they do not now know or understand about golf ball physics, dynamics and performance characteristics. If so, wouldn't that be wonderful?! Stranger things have happened, I guess.

By the way, I had a most edifying conversation with Richard yesterday. In my opinion, it sounds like he really knows his stuff in the world of aerodynamics, including golf ball aerodynamics. And then of course if one is really interested in all this they sure can try to speak with some of the USGA Test Center scientists about any of it, as I did on Monday. The USGA's phone number is certainly out there for all to access. It's 908-234-2300! 

[Jason Topp]

Tom:

This is an old thread in which I made the case that the sky was not falling and used historical distance gains as a major component of the argument.  The argument does not really reflect my views on the issue generally but does make valid points.

http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,16574.msg288382/


A now outdated version of Mike Hurzdan's book gave the the following high caliber player driver yardages for a series of technological innovations. I don't think it is based on much actual data but used for illustrative purposes:


Until    1848              Feathery       140 yards
Until    1902               Gutty            190 yards
Until     1945            Wound      230 yards
Until present (1996)         Modern   270 yards

[Tom_Doak]

Tom:

I am not sure there is a true cause-and-effect relationship between equipment tech and golf design, but if there is, then you can study this phenomenon the other way around, by noting when courses were lengthened, and assuming that had something to do with equipment or with how people were playing.

I'm familiar with three periods of lengthening:

1.  Between 1915 and the early 1920's.  Courses up to 1915 weighed in at not much over 6,000 yards.  By the mid-1920's 6,500 was the norm and some championship courses were 6,800+.

2.  The early-mid 1960's.  Whether it was the result of technology, or GOLF DIGEST rankings of the toughest courses, or just a reaction to Jack Nicklaus, courses started pushing for 7,200 yards in this era.

3.  The last ten years.  I would attribute this more to making the driver easier to hit, so that the best players could swing all-out, rather than making the ball much better than it was in the 1990's.  But at the dawn of the 21st century, there were not many courses above 7,200 yards, and now some modern designs are pushing 7,800+.

[JESII]

What are the USGA/R&A's goals when they test balls and implements? And how do their findings impact the rules of golf? Do they look at I&B rules in the context of a single golfer playing against the course? Or do they look at two (or more) golfers playing against each other? Or both?

[Richard Choi]

Thanks for the kind words Tom.

I found a couple of sites that maybe of interest in regarding golf ball flight.

The first is a golf ball simulation applet site (http://www.ecs.syr.edu/centers/simfluid/red/golf.html). There is a really neat app here where you can vary initial flight conditions (launch angle, spin rate, and initial velocity) and see how far the ball travels and what trajectory it takes.

The second site is a summary of all of the physics involved in golf ball flight (http://www.golf-simulators.com/physics.htm). The diagrams really help in understanding all of the forces that are in play while a golf ball is in flight.

[Melvyn Morrow]

Tom P you forgot to mention those important words "IN MY OPINION"

Melvyn

PS What ship from America did 'Your Opinion' sail on, just in case you need some help

[JESII]

Melvyn,

Where, along that continuum, would you like technology to stop?

[JMEvensky]

Melvyn,

Where, along that continuum, would you like technology to stop?

I'd bet a large sum that MM would prefer that you change the question to "where would you have liked...".

[V. Kmetz]

After reading Scotland's Gift last night and the extensive notations CBM has about the ball's devlopment in that book, I think this:

1.  The explosion of golf, to which the Haskell ball contributed mightily, after 1900 was already damned to a commercial component.  CBM recounts a story that illustrates that almost the very moment the Haskells were introduced there were proprietary debates for how the first players and tinkerers were modifying and shortly thereafter scored (the beginning of dimples) in different patterns and molds calling their modification a distinct new thing that owed nothing but a thank you to Haskell.

1a.  So for me there is no going back to change any key moment when Golf distance or accuracy could have slowed down.  There was always to be a proprietary controversy to erupt when standardization was thought to be applied.  A game born on the very ethos of invention does not take well to such regualtion.

2.  Going forward my crazy idea is that the USGA, the R & A, the PGAs of the globe invite the Ball manufacturers to summit and propose to them the following:

A.  The championship, governing bodies will issue technical specifications for a tournament ball that addresses the many concerns of the the modern ball's properties, to all Ball manufacturers who accept the invitation to summit.

B.  Those Ball manufacturers will be charged to develop a unique, or adopt an existing shared, common method of manufacture to meet those specifications and produce Golf Balls of identical character, only unalike in that they were produced by the machines of several different companies using the same materials and engineering method on which they have agreed. e.g. Titleist and Callaway produce a ball that meets the specs and tests the same.

C.  Once developed, produced and properly tested, the governing bodies will implement the ball for all championships they themselves conduct or sanction.  Local golf associations, clubs, courses, foursomes, partners and singles will be on their own and will still be able to choose whether or not to use this ball for their own activities.  

D.  Every other ball currently sold by every manufacturer may be sold commercially and used in any provincial setting as may be, however the new "tournament ball" - which will carry a special insignia of "Tourney Approved" - will  still come sold side by side with other brands of the "tournament ball" but they are all the same so the allegiance is product loyalty not verified performance - Titleist, Callaway, dunlop, Srixon, whatever...every pro shop will carry every participating manufacturer's issuance of the tournament ball as one of their product lines, but people wanting a tournament ball would be emotionally choosing which one - there would be a verified absence of difference in performance as the method they use is the same...Think of just one more choice in any manufacturer of golf ball...now there's a Pro VX999 that you have to use if you're playing in a US Open or State Open.

E.  On the elite tournament side, thsi would also allow the professional players to not break allegiance with their manufacturer's promotional contracts and perhaps at those tournaments the balls used can come from the governing body...

F.  i think the whole idea for the Future is to get golf balls into the commercial model of that tennis contains...even though in tennis the ball is shared by the players...in Tennis, Wilson or Penn don't get mad because Slazenger is the ball they use at Wimbledon...they know that people who are playing the sport in everyday life are using whatever they want...so it should be for Golf if not moreso. Because the impact of the elite tournaments on everyday golf requires a bigger and more costly tennis court to play on and influences classic courses to become quirky brutes...we're actually losing something in that...a connection to the essence of the game as it devloped.

cheers

vk

[JESII]

Melvyn,

Where, along that continuum, would you like technology to stop?

I'd bet a large sum that MM would prefer that you change the question to "where would you have liked...".

Probably, but I failed english class all the way along...

[Tony_Muldoon]

[Tony_Muldoon]

From Scott McPherson's excellent book.

[Scott Macpherson]

Tom & Tom (sounds like a good name for a comedy duo)

That's part of what my study of TOC highlighted. In modern times there are 3 distinct times when TOC was lengthened.

1-   1904 (in response to the intro of the Haskell)
2-   1938 (H.Hinton and M.Behr say it was in response to the ball and also maybe in response to Steel shafts?)
3-   2000 (in response to the Pro v1)

Interesting stuff.


Oh- and I just see that while I was writing that, Tony put up the chart. Nice one Tony.


scott

[JMEvensky]

Melvyn,

Where, along that continuum, would you like technology to stop?

I'd bet a large sum that MM would prefer that you change the question to "where would you have liked...".

Probably, but I failed english class all the way along...

I wasn't dissing your grammar,just assuming that MHM would prefer that the technology had stopped long ago.

[JESII]

And I meant to ask about the time frame Tom outlined as opposed to an open ended question...my bad.

[JMEvensky]

VK,your 2B is an insurmountable hurdle,IMO.Ball companies have invested millions in R/D and they ain't sharing.Unless/until the USGA is prepared to pay them for their past research/future sales,what do Titleist or Callaway have to gain?

The "good of the game" probably has a different meaning to Titleist/Callaway than it does in Far Hills.

[JESII]

I wonder if Titleist wouldn't actually prefer that...

Innovation would stop, and competition with it...Titleist can buy up all the ball companies for cheap and only sell Titleist's going forward? Why wouldn't Srixon sell? How about Bridgestone? Once they own the market what would a dozen balls cost?

I think the biggest concern Titleist/Fortune Brands would have is a roll-back where everyone starts out even...




On its own, what's bad for the game about current technology? Balls and clubs?

[RSLivingston_III]

As problematic as the distance increases have been, aren't the (relatively) recent developments allowing high, carry, fast stopping shots- even more detrimental? Hasn't that almost eliminated strategic placement of the ball for the approach shot?

[JESII]

Ralph,

I don't see too many 10 handicappers hitting sky-high 4 irons over fronting bunkers and stopping the ball near a hidden hole location...


I understand your point very well, I just disagree that it actually happens...

[RSLivingston_III]

Jim,
I agree it is more prevalent amongst scratch/pro level golfers, and it has been a while since I was last out playing with a group of that level of golfer, I think the cut would be more in the 15-20 hc players.

I had assumed from the samples shown we were using better players as the standard. I missed where 10 hc was the standard.

[JESII]

I just pulled 10 out of thin air.

I just think the percentage of people that actually use the equipment in a manner that would require 7,800 yard courses is so small it just doesn't make sense. Even standard scracth guys cannot.

[Tony_Muldoon]

Tom & Tom (sounds like a good name for a comedy duo)

That's part of what my study of TOC highlighted. In modern times there are 3 distinct times when TOC was lengthened.

1-   1904 (in response to the intro of the Haskell)
2-   1938 (H.Hinton and M.Behr say it was in response to the ball and also maybe in response to Steel shafts?)
3-   2000 (in response to the Pro v1)

Interesting stuff.


Oh- and I just see that while I was writing that, Tony put up the chart. Nice one Tony.
scott

Scott I’ve been so busy that it was only in the last few weeks that I got to watch this year’s Open courtesy of a hard disc.  Did you get to hear any of Allis’s comments on the book? Clearly he’d revised for the old course by reading your tome and he was very impressed, filled a no of quiet moments with new facts he’d just learned and he was fulsome in his praise even directing listenrs to Waterstone’s!

[V. Kmetz]

I think that because they are making a ball that will not be desirable for the local player...he/she will rather want the unchained ball...it'll actually be an enhancement to their revenues...more total balls sold.

Remember this is a lesser ball to make than whatever innovation they need to keep going up now.  and if they price it a little higher than their normal offerings that'll multiply the market enormously as no one who doesn';t play tournaments will want to pay more for a ball that does a little less than they have been used to but the tournament players will have to pay a little more to adhere to the stipulated conditions

In this one new line, which they will have to put minimal R&D into because the blueprints will be given to them, if the governing bodies seed it correctly, I think they will love it...

"do you play the tournament ball, Jim?"

"No Vin, i play the Hotflite, how about you...?"

"Well I got two sleeves of the Callaway Tourney Ball  last week to play in the Met pub links, but I had to get two more right before the tournament, because I wore those out chipping and putting with them to get used to them, I had to use the Titlesist tourney ball becuase their shop was out of the Callaways."

"Are they really that different?"

"I don't know, they are both a little shorter, I used to go up to 270 with the last Pro V edition, but I don't think i got past 255 on my best hits...I've still got to see.  but to answer your question I'm still going with my Noodle if you guys allow it."

"Sure use whatever you want..."

Conversations like that will be taking place on on 1st tees...alll over America.  who wants to use the lousy pro ball for a Nassau, when I can hit this one father than Mickelson?

I think this is a commercial opportunity for the Ball makers to make an entirely new line that has the built-in clientele of elite and regional tournament players, while they can go crazy with other offerings to the non-tournament crowd.  

They still get to put their shingle up on both streets and as opposed to conservative purchasing, the 95% of people who don't give a shit what ball it is and fish for balls in the water we'll be prone to take a taste of somethign else too.

It's just another menu item for them to offer in their array...except that this one offering is the same ball with a different packaging.

I think it's an opportunity for them, not a potential melt-down of their business model.

cheers

vk

[Tony_Muldoon]

Ralph,

I don't see too many 10 handicappers hitting sky-high 4 irons over fronting bunkers and stopping the ball near a hidden hole location...


I understand your point very well, I just disagree that it actually happens...

I make the opposite point on Jason’s topic about wide fairways. If you have to run the ball onto the green then front bunkers matter, if you can fly them they don't. Hence I agree with Ralph the high flying game, which we all play partly because we're now hitting shorter clubs (typically not 4 irons) into greens has had a great detriment on Architecture. I believe there were less 'hidden hole locations' as we know them know, in the old days.  Not one talked about ‘4 yards on’ then.