Is 400 Yards within sight and reach ?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Golfweek reported that Victor Schwamkrug averaged
377.5 and 372 yards for the twice daily messured drives in the LaSalle Bank's middle two rounds.

It is further reported that he NORMALLY launches his driver
330 yards, and his 3-wood, 300 yards.

He uses a Great Big Bertha II, 47 inch triple X Penley Graphite shaft, 6.5 degree driver, with the Callaway HX ball.

Who will be the first to hit the 400 mark, and how quickly will the 400 mark be attained ?

[A_Clay_Man]

Did this guy win?

If he didn't what's your point?

And,

 It don't say 'how', on the scorecard.

[Forrest Richardson]

400 yards is within reach on fast ground during the summer with a wind — downhill. So, why not with a club the size of a Buick and a strength-trained player? If the hole can hold up for the conditions, why not the golfer? (I know the answer, by the way.)

[John_Conley]

Pat:

There is an absolute limit in place on just about everything.  Max C.O.R. for your clubface.  Max length of the implement.  Max headsize (probably isn't necessary as at some point it begins to drag on the swing too much).  Similar limitations on ball.

I'd guess that drives of 400 yards will be reserved for favorable conditions.  Taken at sea level with no roll, Tour pros may carry 280 with only a smattering able to eclipse that.  Professional long drivers - also known as the sideshow freaks of golf - might be able to get to 330.  (FWIW, Schwamkrug compares very favorably with them and made the 2001 Re/Max field.)

Unless hybrid mutant humans are coming soon, 400 is out of reach.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

A Clayman,

The purpose ?

To ask a question.

John Conley,

A few years ago, some on this site declared that there was very little additional driving distance that could be gained because technology had maxed out, and the laws of physics were a barrier.

Since then, The ProV1, other balls and new drivers have rendered those statements inaccurate.

I'm not so sure that the manufacturers are accepting of your position and willing to give up on their research and development efforts.

Time will tell.

With respect to conditioning, conditioning only works well if the muscles being conditioned are the ones used in striking a golf ball.

And, one of the best methods for getting in tip top condition for hitting a golf ball is:

To hit a thousand golf balls a day.

I think golfers have been doing that for the last 60 years.

[John_Conley]

Pat:

I disagree rather strongly about the ball.  The fallacy is to look at Titleist (the most played ball for professionals) as the standard.  I'd rather look at the longest ball available.

Are any balls today any longer than the Slazenger 480 Interlok or Maxfli M.D.?  I doubt it, but we may be able to eke out a few yards with optimization.  The Pro V1 is only significant in that it marked Titleist's belated admission that wound balls like the Tour Balata, Tour Professional, and Tour Prestige are inferior.

Spalding's Tour Edition may have been premature, but it is clear that their testing indicated a solid ball would outperform a wound ball - even if it took time to perfect it.

Answer me this.  Where will incremental improvements to the golf ball come?  We have seen the Maxfli DoDocaHedron pattern for roll.  The tungsten weight of the Strata Tour Ultimate a year after the perimeter weighted Titanium covered balls.  384 dimples on a Titleist for better "hang", only to be negated 20 years later with a lesser-dimpled Pro V1 made for Phil Mickelson who was hitting it with too much spin at launch to control it.

Ball manufacturers deserve more credit than you are giving them in that they already are making balls with little tradeoff for playing characteristics.  Everyone on Tour today plays distance balls, at least in the parlance of 1990.  No one plays "spin" balls like the Tour Balata or Maxfli equivalent.

Instead of extrapolating advances of the last 150 years for ball construction, I think we keep getting halfway to the absolute limits.  The improvements from here are less and less.

What's next?  I'm guessing an "inverted" Driver head like the Bridgestone J to get increased roll on firm fairways.  These things run in cycles and the manufacturers will certainly come up with a "new" (really not new, but they'll say it is) innovation for club construction.

[Patrick_Mucci]

John Conley,

If I knew which ball manufacturer would come up with the next generation of golf ball, I would buy some of their stock, but unfortunately, I don't have a clue.

But, as long as substantial dollars are being devoted to R&D I think distance will continue to gain.

[John_Conley]

Pat:

Sandy Weill on CNBC for an hour tonight at 9:00 PM and Midnight eastern.

Back to the balls.  Go back 15 years when "players" used the Tour Balata.  Hacks used the "Rock Flite".  Outdrive a "player" with a distance ball - I preferred the 480 Interlok, affectionately known as "the marble" and rumored to be a "hot combo" when struck with a metalwood - and they always said, "you were using a hard ball."

Today?  Everyone is using some variation of a distance ball.

Simple proof?  Ask the ballmakers in the late 80s what they could have done to make longer balls and they would have said, "hotter centers and harder covers, but good golfers don't want this."  Ask the same question today and you'll see that there isn't that much distance to be picked up over a Pro V1, Hogan, Srixon (with the Danish flag to boot!), or other top-of-the-line ball with distance modifications.

I ask you again, where will the increase in yardage come from?  15 years ago you would have been able to say, "if they could come up with a ball that wasn't so hard but employed the distance ball design (essentially describing the Tour Edition that, ironically, spun too much - the precursor to the Strata), I think they'd be able to make longer balls."

Today you are left with, "I dunno how, but I think they will."  I've asked a lot of knowledgeable people and they are reduced to speculation.  THIS WAS NOT THE CASE in 1988.  The ball manufacturers KNEW how to make longer balls.  (They did in fact make them, but catered to a different class of golfer that was more concerned with durability than playability.)

The funniest thing to me is that golfers who steadfastly refused to play anything but a Titleist Tour Balata or Titleist Tour Professional are now perfectly content to play a Titleist Pro V1 that doesn't spin anywhere near as much as they were convinced they needed it to.  Funnier still is the Lady Precept.  A VERRRRY low compression (73, I'm told) ball with a rather hard cover, everyone now realizes that any ball when properly struck from a fairway to a somewhat receptive green will hold.  

They finally have a ball to get us the distance the Strata guys were getting.[/color]
--Brad Faxon, paid to play Titleist, on The Golf Channel about the Pro V1 less than two months after Mickelson's infamous "greatest advancement since steel shafts" quote.

Titleist had such a lock on their staff that many of these Touring professionals had no idea how inferior wound balls were until Titleist made the Pro V1 themselves.