Ball rollback: a different angle

[Brent Hutto]

On second thought, never mind.

[Patrick_Mucci]

What was you swing speed relative to Venturi's in 1964 when you were 21? 

Not that different.
But remember, you couldn't swing all out because of the small club face, weight of the club and spun of the ball.

What is yours today at 71 relative to Bubba or Tiger? 

Forget my swing speed today compared to Bubba and Tiger, compare my swing speed when I was 21 to Bubba and Tiger.
There was no way you could generate the swing speeds in 1963 with that equipment that you can generate today with today's equipment.
That's the crux of the issue.

Why are you astonished that there is an enormous gap?

I'm NOT astonished, that's your word, not mine.

Your swing speed has gone down and Bubba and Tiger are probably at least 10 mph faster than Venturi.     

I'll guarantee you that Bubba's and Tiger's swing speeds are a lot more than 10 mph vs Venturi.
With 1964's equipment there's no way that Venturi could come close to Tiger and Bubba BECAUSE of the equipment.

THAT'S THE ISSUE, the modern I & B enables swing speeds previously unobtainable, to be achieved.

[Pat Burke]

Bryan,

I hope you never drag out the USGA obfuscation graphs again.

What is of interest is not what a ball does as swing speed increases. What is of interest is how the factor that changed actually changed results from players. The factor that changed is ball spin!

This website

http://probablegolfinstruction.com/PGI%20Newsletter/news05-02-04.htm

gives distances for different spins.

First thing to note. The introduction of the three piece ball reduced spin and unfairly penalized the slow swing player. Notice that the slow swing player lost 5 yards. The removal of the balata balls from the market place removed balls spinning relatively highly off of the driver from the market place, thereby hurting the results of the below average swing speed player.

Looking for another reason golf is losing players. Maybe that's one.

Second thing to note. The 100 mph swing speed player gained at most four yards with optimal ball selection. The 120 mph swing speed player gained at most nine yards with optimal ball selection. Therefore, the new balls have given an extra advantage to the high swing speed player. The near sighted USGA is right. Distance does not increase super linearly with increased swing speed. But that is not the issue. The distance advantage gained with the new ball by the high speed swinger is super linear. That's unfair!

Notice that the gain by optimization for the 120 mph swinger over the 100 mph swinger is 2.25x.
Should he get that much gain?
120/100 = 1.2x
172/143 = 1.203 (ball speed comparison)

I think the USGA needs to require the spin be put back into the ball.

Perhaps naively I suggest the manufacturers could put a balata cover over a solid core. Wouldn't that do it? I don't see what difference a wound core and a solid core would make. I do know they all got rid of the ball winding equipment.

In 1996, Callaway was fitting me in to a 6.5 degree driver and a much different launch angle
After my surgery in '98, I came back to play in 2000.
I was fitted in to a 9.75 degree driver, looking for 3 degrees higher launch and lower spin on my driver.
I took a few months to make a swing adjustment with my driver to launch it higher without spinning it more,
and net effect, was able to carry the ball 8 to 10 yards further, with the same shaft.  Through the year,
I was about 60th in total driving.  Got a 10.75 degree driver late in the year, with a different shaft (higher kick point)
and in my last 4 events that year, was in the top 20 total driving every event (high of 10th)

Tour players made huge gains (in part) due to the research changing the ideals of what our launch should be,
those same players being able to make adjustments to take advantage of those ideals, and still hit it squarely/solidly.

Those same players will hit Pinnacle Gold or Noodles further than their ProV1

[Garland Bayley]

...
Those same players will hit Pinnacle Gold or Noodles further than their ProV1

My understanding is that ProV1 still spins more than the two piece balls.

[Doug Siebert]

Hold on here.  Just because the line looks rather straight does not mean it is a linear relationship.  Plus, I'm always skeptical of graphs that are supposed to indicate a relationship or lack of between the axes that don't have both origins at 0 - if you choose the start of each axis correctly you can make it look like a 45* slope even if every additional mph gave you 10 more yards.

Looks like me like the graph shows around 225 yards at 90 mph and just over 310 yards at 120 mph.  So an increase of 33% in swing speed has resulted in a nearly 38% increase in distance.  I'd prefer if this showed carry distance, I assume it does not unless the ball/driver/swing is optimized one hell of a lot better than I am

More importantly, even if that showed a strictly linear relationship between additional mph of swing speed and additional yards of distance there's a very important piece of data missing:  Where's the equivalent graph from say 20-30 years ago?

[Bryan Izatt]

Bryan,

I hope you never drag out the USGA obfuscation graphs again. 

What obfuscation?  The graphs depict what they purport to depict - that the modern ball does not go disproportionately further as swing speed increases.

What is of interest is not what a ball does as swing speed increases.  It may not be of interest to you, but seems to be a common misperception by many others.    What is of interest is how the factor that changed actually changed results from players. The factor that changed is ball spin! I get it, you are obsessed with spin.

This website

http://probablegolfinstruction.com/PGI%20Newsletter/news05-02-04.htm

gives distances for different spins. 

First thing to note. The introduction of the three piece ball reduced spin and unfairly penalized the slow swing player.  That's what you're inferring.  I don't see any comparable data for pre-three piece balls.  BTW weren't balata balls 3 pices - the core, the windings and the cover?    Notice that the slow swing player lost 5 yards.  No, I don't notice that in the article.  There are no stats for the old balata ball in the article.  The removal of the balata balls from the market place removed balls spinning relatively highly off of the driver from the market place, thereby hurting the results of the below average swing speed player.  There are no comparative stats for the old balata ball so I find it hard to draw your absolute conclusion.

Looking for another reason golf is losing players. Maybe that's one.  How much the ball spins off a driver is not high on my list of reasons golf is losing players.

Second thing to note. The 100 mph swing speed player gained at most four yards with optimal ball selection.   I don't see where you're getting that number.   The 120 mph swing speed player gained at most nine yards with optimal ball selection.  Nor, this one. Therefore, the new balls have given an extra advantage to the high swing speed player.  Whereever in the tables you got those numbers, do they represent the optimal launch conditions for the respective swing speeds.  I think you've tried to dumb this down too much. The near sighted USGA is right. Distance does not increase super linearly with increased swing speed. But that is not the issue. The distance advantage gained with the new ball by the high speed swinger is super linear. That's unfair! 

What the heck do you mean by "super linear".  Is this from parallel computing?  The best I could find is this definition.  Is this what you mean:

"Super-linear, f(x + y) >= f(x) + f(y), simply means that the curve departs from linear in a "concave upward" manner. Say for example like the curve y=x^2 for positive x.

Sub-linear, f(x + y) <= f(x) + f(y), means it departs from linear in a "concave downwards" manner. Say for example like the curve y=sqrt(x) for positive x. "

The Quintavalla study proves this is not the case with the modern ball.  If you're saying that it is true comparing the old balata to the new Pro V1, then I respect that that is your belief, but there is no proof that I've seen that that it is the case.

Notice that the gain by optimization for the 120 mph swinger over the 100 mph swinger is 2.25x.
Should he get that much gain?
120/100 = 1.2x
172/143 = 1.203 (ball speed comparison)

This math just totally mystifies me, but don't bother trying to explain further.

I think the USGA needs to require the spin be put back into the ball.

You really should get over your obsession with spin.  As Pat B points out from his experience you can change the spin and other launch parameters a lot through clubhead design, loft, shaft, and swing technique.  It would be much simpler to just decrease the Overall Distance Standard to your heart's desire and let the guys who design and manufacture balls figure pout how to get there.   

Perhaps naively I suggest the manufacturers could put a balata cover over a solid core. Wouldn't that do it? I don't see what difference a wound core and a solid core would make. I do know they all got rid of the ball winding equipment.

Why, oh why, would anyone want to go back to balata.  It's scarce and so easily destroyed by mishit shot.  I never want to go back to smiley balls.     Can you imagine the damage modern grooves would do to them too.  If you don't understand how the core can effect distance, perhaps you should recuse yourself from designing golf balls.

[Bryan Izatt]

What was you swing speed relative to Venturi's in 1964 when you were 21? 

Not that different.
But remember, you couldn't swing all out because of the small club face, weight of the club and spun of the ball.

As best as I recall, I get bad results when I swing all out now as I did 50 years ago. 

What is yours today at 71 relative to Bubba or Tiger? 

Forget my swing speed today compared to Bubba and Tiger, compare my swing speed when I was 21 to Bubba and Tiger.
There was no way you could generate the swing speeds in 1963 with that equipment that you can generate today with today's equipment.
That's the crux of the issue.

Honest question - do you have any idea what your or Venturi's swing speed was when you were 21?  Do you think it was under 105 mph.  Tiger is around 120 now, I think.  Regardless, the additional swing speed, whatever it is a product of the club, not the ball.  Rolling back the ball to cover the sins of the club seems somehow wrong-headed to me.

Why are you astonished that there is an enormous gap?

I'm NOT astonished, that's your word, not mine.

Your swing speed has gone down and Bubba and Tiger are probably at least 10 mph faster than Venturi.     

I'll guarantee you that Bubba's and Tiger's swing speeds are a lot more than 10 mph vs Venturi.
With 1964's equipment there's no way that Venturi could come close to Tiger and Bubba BECAUSE of the equipment.

Do you think Venturi et al were sub 100 mph?  How much more than 10 mph lower?  I played in our Am championship here in the 60's in a field that included Gary Cowan ( 2 time US Am champion) at Scarborough Golf Club.  There was a short par 4, the 17th, where he carried a river that was at least a 280 carry (albeit downhill).  He sure didn't do that swinging under 100 mph.

I'd agree with your second statement.

THAT'S THE ISSUE, the modern I & B enables swing speeds previously unobtainable, to be achieved.

Agreed, but swing speed is a club and athleticism and technique issue, not a ball issue.

[Bryan Izatt]

Hold on here.  Just because the line looks rather straight does not mean it is a linear relationship.  Plus, I'm always skeptical of graphs that are supposed to indicate a relationship or lack of between the axes that don't have both origins at 0 - if you choose the start of each axis correctly you can make it look like a 45* slope even if every additional mph gave you 10 more yards.

Changing the origins to zero will change the way the graph looks, but doesn't change the relationship between the variables at all.  The slope is 2.7 yards/MPH regardless of whether you start at zero or at the numbers in the graph.

Looks like me like the graph shows around 225 yards at 90 mph and just over 310 yards at 120 mph.  So an increase of 33% in swing speed has resulted in a nearly 38% increase in distance.  I'd prefer if this showed carry distance, I assume it does not unless the ball/driver/swing is optimized one hell of a lot better than I am

Yes, the % distance increase is a bit greater than the % swing speed increase.  That still does not make the increase non-linear.  I wouldn't argue that a linear increase with a lower slope - say 2.5 yards/MPH - might not be more just.  But how we advise the USGA about what the slope should be? 

More importantly, even if that showed a strictly linear relationship between additional mph of swing speed and additional yards of distance there's a very important piece of data missing:  Where's the equivalent graph from say 20-30 years ago?

It's not "IF".  The results show a pretty linear relationship with a bit of a tail off at the higher speeds (the opposite of what people seem to think).  Yes, the missing link is the comparable chart for balls from the 1990's or 1980's.  It would be interesting to see the Titleist Professional or the Tour Balata and a Pinnacle or a Top-Flite tested under the same conditions as the Quintavalla study.  So far, I've never seen such results.  Jeff W says he has a dozen such balls - let's all persuade him to send them to the USGA and then lobby Quintavalla to do the comparative study.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Bryan,

That's why I constantly reference I & B, not just the ball.

[Garland Bayley]

Bryan,

You may think I am obsessing about spin. Or, I may just be emphasizing one of the most important factors. As far as I have seen, we have had one informed report here on what the USGA might be thinking about ball regulation. That was the report of Dan Hermann who reported on a test he participated in with the USGA on a reduced distance ball. The factor the USGA was testing was higher spin rates. He reported that, if I recall correctly, he lost a small amount of distance with the higher spin ball, while his wife gained a small amount of distance with the higher spin ball.

The study you report from the USGA does not report on the effect of spin. Therefore, I don't think it is pertinent.

One report I have seen here said larger dimples would increase spin (that may have been Dan also). I don't understand that, but if you were to say larger dimples would increase the effect on the curving flight of the ball, that would make sense to me. So it would seem that larger dimples and a relatively high rate of spin may be why the old balls ballooned up when struck at a high rate of speed, thereby reducing distance significantly.

The study you report from the USGA does not report on dimple size either. Still not pertinent.

[Jim Nugent]

The only USGA study I've seen was by Quintavalla in 2006 and revisited in 2011 that demonstrated that for the modern ball there is a linear increase in distance vs swing speed.

That may be true for elite players, who make nearly perfect contact with the ball.  But I wonder if that is true for non-elite players.  Average golfers make great contact way less.  So they won't get the same benefits from the newer ball technology. 

If you could make the same graph, but with average golfers at lower swing speeds and elite players at high speeds, you might not see a straight line.  Instead you might see a curve, of the same nature as y =  x².  Similar to what Bob Crosby is saying.     

[A.G._Crockett]

The only USGA study I've seen was by Quintavalla in 2006 and revisited in 2011 that demonstrated that for the modern ball there is a linear increase in distance vs swing speed.

That may be true for elite players, who make nearly perfect contact with the ball.  But I wonder if that is true for non-elite players.  Average golfers make great contact way less.  So they won't get the same benefits from the newer ball technology. 

If you could make the same graph, but with average golfers at lower swing speeds and elite players at high speeds, you might not see a straight line.  Instead you might see a curve, of the same nature as y =  x².  Similar to what Bob Crosby is saying.     

Jim,
I'm no scientist or statistician (understatement alert!) but wouldn't this be true of ANY ball?  In any event, it wouldn't change the answer to the question of whether or not distance gains are linear or non-linear, would it?  The issue of distance loss on off-center contact is another question entirely, and not necessarily an important one to this debate.

And I'll continue to ask this question:
Who pays for the R&D for the development of a ball that:
   a. may not be achievable
   b. will be viewed by the masses an inferior product

If I'm Titleist, Bridgestone, Nike, Callaway, Srixon, etc., my answer is "Not ME!"

[JESII]

And I'll continue to ask this question:
Who pays for the R&D for the development of a ball that:
   a. may not be achievable
   b. will be viewed by the masses an inferior product

If I'm Titleist, Bridgestone, Nike, Callaway, Srixon, etc., my answer is "Not ME!"

Sure they will...the trigger point is the USGA mandating a roll-back, agreed?

In the event of a rollback the manufacturer's can spend money on a lawsuit or marketing their new ball...why would anyone but Titleist sue the USGA? The pie is whole again and they can all fight for all of it...

[A.G._Crockett]

And I'll continue to ask this question:
Who pays for the R&D for the development of a ball that:
   a. may not be achievable
   b. will be viewed by the masses an inferior product

If I'm Titleist, Bridgestone, Nike, Callaway, Srixon, etc., my answer is "Not ME!"

Sure they will...the trigger point is the USGA mandating a roll-back, agreed?

In the event of a rollback the manufacturer's can spend money on a lawsuit or marketing their new ball...why would anyone but Titleist sue the USGA? The pie is whole again and they can all fight for all of it...

No, NOT agreed! 

Roll back to what?  A distance standard that results in balls that go lesser distances than Pinnacles do now?  More spin so badly hit balls curve like boomerangs?  Soft covers that cut easily?  What EXACTLY is the USGA going to mandate?

People here throw the term "roll back" around like there was a golden age of golf balls.  There wasn't.  You want to return to something that never existed in the first place!

Golf balls do NOT go farther than they used to go 25 years ago.  PREMIUM golf balls go farther than they used to go 25 years ago!  I used to use a Pinnacle or TopFlite off the tee in scrambles, then balata, or later a Professional, into the greens.  Now I don't bother to switch because my Bridgestone RX goes as far as the Pinnacle anyway.  A ProV1x is basically a Pinnacle with a soft cover.

Here's the deal:  There will be bifurcation OR there will be status quo with distance capped where it is now.  THERE IS NOTHING TO ROLL BACK TO! 

[Garland Bayley]

In browsing a little for information for this thread, I read that urethane is the same softness as balata. So there you have it. You don't have to use balata for a roll back. Offer urethane cover on a two piece solid ball with appropriate sized dimples, and bingo, you've rolled that sucker back. No need to roll back surlyn covered balls, the highly skilled won't use them because they can't use them effectively.

[Patrick_Mucci]

AG,

I believe that the manufacturers and the USGA are intelligent enough, technically savy enough and fully aware of how to establish performance standards that effectively "roll back" the ball.

At the same time I don't think that they can ignore the "I" in "I & B"

Clubheads the size of tennis rackets need to be reduced and the maximum length for clubs established.

Regulating equipment is an integral part of every sport, so I don't see why golf should be immune.

Sadly, I think that golf, like so many sports has lost its purity and transitioned from a sport to entertainment.
And that may be the biggest impediment to reigning in distance.

I don't want to see 400 yard drives.
While Shivas may insist that "chicks dig the long ball", I don't think it's in the best interest of the sport/game/architecture/costs.

Somehow, I don't see the "static" alternative that you depict.

I believe that distance will continue to increase, absent regulatory restrictions, in print and in the physical equipment.

[Mike_Young]

The ball has become extremely profitable now that it is manufactured as a solid ball.  If we were to go back to 1990 wound balls the cost would probably exceed $70 per dozen. 
Shorter shaft, smaller driver face would equal less clubhead speed  JMO

[jeffwarne]

AG,

I believe that the manufacturers and the USGA are intelligent enough, technically savy enough and fully aware of how to establish performance standards that effectively "roll back" the ball.

At the same time I don't think that they can ignore the "I" in "I & B"

Clubheads the size of tennis rackets need to be reduced and the maximum length for clubs established.

Regulating equipment is an integral part of every sport, so I don't see why golf should be immune.

Sadly, I think that golf, like so many sports has lost its purity and transitioned from a sport to entertainment.
And that may be the biggest impediment to reigning in distance.

I don't want to see 400 yard drives.
While Shivas may insist that "chicks dig the long ball", I don't think it's in the best interest of the sport/game/architecture/costs.

Somehow, I don't see the "static" alternative that you depict.

I believe that distance will continue to increase, absent regulatory restrictions, in print and in the physical equipment.

Patrick,
agreed, although I'm not a fan of maximum length of clubs, as it could potentially create problems for a taller player.
a better solution would be a -x rule similar to baseball bats.
for instance in Little League they may mandate a -10 whereby a 31 inch bat can be no lighter than 21 ounces,and at the next age level, a -3 rule may apply, whereby a 31 inch bat may be no lighter than 28 ounces.
That's why there weren't many 45,46 inch drivers in our youth as the overall weight of the steel shaft made such clubs unwieldy.
Now a player can wield a 46 inch driver with a 39 gram shaft and create quite a bit of additional speed from both the length and the (lack of) weight.
baseball has simple rules that eliminate this-people still buy bats.
I'm no expert at any of this, and no doubt an expert is about to debunk all I've written here.
That's part of the problem-too many people have a million reasons why common sense applied in other sports won't work.
If defensive backs and linebackers can be taught to unlearn all they've ever been taught about tackling, and running backs can be taught not to lower  their helmets(new for 2013-14),and my son can adapt to a bat 7 ounces(33%) heavier,  surely we (and golf)can function hitting the ball slightly shorter.
If you disagree, and don't want to give up your yardage, I get it, and that's OK.
I just grow tired of technical reasons why it's impossible (given all the geniuses working on golf balls and clubs) to create a ball that goes a reasonable amount shorter.
Roll back to what?-pick a number-let's say 1990. Pull out the driving yardages of elite players of that era and create a ball that simulates that based on stats today.
and yes I'm aware fitness,agronomy, equipment, athletes, and other factors play a part in that equation. (although I haven't worked out a minute since high school football and still hit it 20 yards further at age 50 than I ever did at 20)
Of course we can debate what's reasonable and what's a reasonable era to roll back to.
Or we can get to work and solve the problem, rather than worrying about stupid things like anchoring and grooves.
and no, I don't anchor and my wedges are 25 years old, and I do use a modern ball and driver.

 

[Bryan Izatt]

Garland,

I think you need to study the topic a lot more before opining.  Try reading this article from Scientific American as a start on understanding dimples.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=how-do-dimples-in-golf-ba

Second you could read the Quintavalla report (there's aPDF that you can link to through this summary of the report.  The detailed report talks about spin in passing.  You'd be interested to know that spin increases as swing speed increases.

http://www.usga.org/news/2006/April/Speed-Vs--Distance--Do-Long-Hitters-Get-An-Unfair-Benefit-/

High spin rates are the reason that balls, old or new, balloon.  What do you think the primary causes of spin with a driver are?  Hint, it's the spin angle and the swing speed. Read and watch these two links.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Z5860T8Dec

www.andrewricegolf.com/tag/clubface/

Given your (lack of) understanding of the physics of striking a golf ball and what controls a ball's flight, I'd leave the design of a rolled back ball to the people who know what they are doing.  As the article in the opening post said - it's complicated.

Bryan,

You may think I am obsessing about spin. Or, I may just be emphasizing one of the most important factors. As far as I have seen, we have had one informed report here on what the USGA might be thinking about ball regulation. That was the report of Dan Hermann who reported on a test he participated in with the USGA on a reduced distance ball. The factor the USGA was testing was higher spin rates. He reported that, if I recall correctly, he lost a small amount of distance with the higher spin ball, while his wife gained a small amount of distance with the higher spin ball.

The study you report from the USGA does not report on the effect of spin. Therefore, I don't think it is pertinent.

One report I have seen here said larger dimples would increase spin (that may have been Dan also). I don't understand that, but if you were to say larger dimples would increase the effect on the curving flight of the ball, that would make sense to me. So it would seem that larger dimples and a relatively high rate of spin may be why the old balls ballooned up when struck at a high rate of speed, thereby reducing distance significantly.

The study you report from the USGA does not report on dimple size either. Still not pertinent.

[Bryan Izatt]

A.G.

And I'll continue to ask this question:
Who pays for the R&D for the development of a ball that:
   a. may not be achievable
   b. will be viewed by the masses an inferior product

If I'm Titleist, Bridgestone, Nike, Callaway, Srixon, etc., my answer is "Not ME!"

A ball that goes shorter is certainly achievable assuming silly people don't try to over-spec how it's to be achieved.

I agree the masses will see it as inferior.

Who pays for the R&D?  My humble suggestion - the USGA has a war chest, why not have the USGA give grants to the manufacturers to aid in the R&D in return for no threat of litigation.  Better to spend the money on R&D for a worthy cause than on lawyers to litigate.

Roll back to what?  A distance standard that results in balls that go lesser distances than Pinnacles do now?  More spin so badly hit balls curve like boomerangs?  Soft covers that cut easily?  What EXACTLY is the USGA going to mandate?

Roll back the ODS to 290 (or the number of your choice) yards for all balls.  Then let the manufacturers figure out how to do it.  You could try to regulate the slope and linearity of the distance/swing speed line, but it then gets way more complicated to design and build and to police.  IMHO, this is a nightmare can of worms.

[Bryan Izatt]

Jeff,

I just grow tired of technical reasons why it's impossible (given all the geniuses working on golf balls and clubs) to create a ball that goes a reasonable amount shorter.

I don't think anybody who understands the physics is saying that it is "impossible".  It's definitely possible, but not simple.  There are many ways to get there and the manufacturers can figure it out.  What is lacking is a consensus will to do something about it.  And, I agree with Mike and Patrick, don't just go after the ball, go after the driver as well.  It took both to get where we are and it should take further regulation of both for us to regress. 

[Bryan Izatt]

Clearly with too much time on my hands I spent a while on a monitor today hitting a Pro V1, a (probably) 15 year old Titleist Tour Balata  100 and a (probably) 14 year old Titleist Professional 100.  Now, I'd bet that the two old Titleists have lost a bit of their pop over the years, but it was worth a try.  The monitor I was on was questionable on clubhead speed, but it was near what my speed is on more accurate monitors and the club speeds were pretty consistent.  I don't have a robot-like swing so there is plenty of variation amongst the results within each ball, but I think the average results are indicative.  I believe the ball speed and spin are reasonably accurate.  The distances are, of course, dependent on the system's algorithm, but they are comparable to my results on other more accurate monitors.




Not surprisingly (given they are 15 years old) the old balls were about 9 yards shorter than the Pro V1.  The ball speeds were about 3 mph slower.  The Professional was surprisingly close in spin, while the Tour Balata was significantly higher.  Despite the extra spin with the Tour Balata, the distances weren't any shorter than the Professional.

I now have one point I could put on the Quintavalla chart - a point about 9 yards lower at around 99 mph.  Now all I need is a person who swings at at 90 mph and another at 110 mph and another who swings at 120 mph and I'd have a rough cut at what the old ball and modern driver distance/swing speed line would be.  Sadly, I don't know where to find those two people.   

[Pat Burke]

Clearly with too much time on my hands I spent a while on a monitor today hitting a Pro V1, a (probably) 15 year old Titleist Tour Balata  100 and a (probably) 14 year old Titleist Professional 100.  Now, I'd bet that the two old Titleists have lost a bit of their pop over the years, but it was worth a try.  The monitor I was on was questionable on clubhead speed, but it was near what my speed is on more accurate monitors and the club speeds were pretty consistent.  I don't have a robot-like swing so there is plenty of variation amongst the results within each ball, but I think the average results are indicative.  I believe the ball speed and spin are reasonably accurate.  The distances are, of course, dependent on the system's algorithm, but they are comparable to my results on other more accurate monitors.



Not surprisingly (given they are 15 years old) the old balls were about 9 yards shorter than the Pro V1.  The ball speeds were about 3 mph slower.  The Professional was surprisingly close in spin, while the Tour Balata was significantly higher.  Despite the extra spin with the Tour Balata, the distances weren't any shorter than the Professional.

I now have one point I could put on the Quintavalla chart - a point about 9 yards lower at around 99 mph.  Now all I need is a person who swings at at 90 mph and another at 110 mph and another who swings at 120 mph and I'd have a rough cut at what the old ball and modern driver distance/swing speed line would be.  Sadly, I don't know where to find those two people.   

Nice!

Your smash factor was pretty consistent, especially given the Titleist Tour Balata was probably their worst ball ever!
Wonder how much "energy" an old Professional or Tour Balata loses over time.  Would imagine windings would degrade?

smash spread is      1.42 to   1.49*
I have some wound balls as well, may have to try some experiments when I'm healthy

[Doug Siebert]

Golf balls do NOT go farther than they used to go 25 years ago.  PREMIUM golf balls go farther than they used to go 25 years ago!  I used to use a Pinnacle or TopFlite off the tee in scrambles, then balata, or later a Professional, into the greens.  Now I don't bother to switch because my Bridgestone RX goes as far as the Pinnacle anyway.  A ProV1x is basically a Pinnacle with a soft cover.

Bullshit.  I used to hit random balls like Top Flight and Pinnacle in scrambles back in the 80s and 90s, and I never hit a drive that carried 300 yards.  Probably didn't come within 20 yards of doing so.  But somehow in the early to mid 00s, when I was in my mid 30s to around 40 and swung more within myself than I used to when I was younger, I managed to do so often enough that it was not at all a freak occurrence.  I'm talking flat ground, no wind, no elevation, just normal conditions.  I know, must be improved fitness and nutrition that caused that!  That might have been around the time I started taking a daily multivitamin

I noticed the difference between the rock flites and the balata/professional balls not by their carry distance off the driver, but by their roll.  In that, with the rocks I actually got roll, something I only saw on very firm ground with the spinnier balls.  I hit the ball so damn high even with a 6.5* driver that it'd just balloon up in the air and roll very little after landing.  That was a terrible driver trajectory to have pre-Pro V1.  The Pro V1 changed things to where you wanted the high launch angle and rather than ballooning and dropping like a dead duck it flattened at the top and soared for extra yards.  Suddenly my biggest problem with the driver became an asset.  If the Pro V1 is just a 80s/90s rock that doesn't suck around the greens, how come I didn't see that soaring trajectory with those?  They ballooned up too, they just landed with less spin so they still rolled unless it was pretty wet.

Not to mention that hitting the Pro V1 into a strong wind was massively different than hitting a 90s rock into the wind.  I used to always play those rocks I'd found the previous season on the first couple rounds of a new season because I always hit more wild ones than usual until I get the kinks worked out.  You know, those really windy early spring days.  The rocks were easier to control into the wind, no doubt about that - hitting a Professional or Balata into a really strong wind on a tight hole with trouble on both sides was terrifying unless you were really golfing your ball that day and had utter confidence in your swing.  I still clearly remember the first time I hit a Pro V1 into a 20 mph wind and I was astounded when I drove it past the 150 yard marker on a 423 yard hole, and even though I felt like I hit it with a bit of a closed face, it just gently drew into the wind rather than violently twisting left into the rough as I would have normally expected for that swing into that wind.  It was a huge change from what I was used to, immediately noticeable as something I had never seen before, whether with the Professional, the Balata I played a decade earlier, or the rocks I'd randomly play from time to time.  You have to understand, for the ballooning trajectory I'd normally see until that day, I would have been pretty damn happy with a drive to 185 or so.  Gaining 40 yards with less worry about losing a not quite perfect shot sideways was massive.  For me at least, I think that was the single biggest change with the new ball - one that certainly reduced the required skill to hit a drive into a strong wind.

[Richard Choi]

People want to dismiss that problem as a one that applies to only a small fraction of golfers. But that misses the real point. Major championships are critically important to any sport. For all sorts of reasons. One of those reasons is that if the game we see at US Opens or at the Masters starts to de-link from the game us ordinary golfers play, it bodes badly for the future of the game.

Other sports don't have this problem because they are self-regulating. In tennis, for example, no one wants to introduce a new, hot ball because everyone will need to return it. Ditto for baseball. I may hit it farther, but I've also got to pitch and field it. There is no similar inherent constraints on hot new balls in golf. Legislated limits on balls arre supposed to fill in that gap in golf. But the current limits aren't doing what they are supposed to do.

You must not watch or play much tennis...

With the advent of pros using stiffer racquets with stiffer poly strings, the modern tennis players hit so much harder with so much more spin that the game that is played today bear little resemblance to how it was played 20 years ago. A serve and volley players like McEnroe and Sampras would't have a prayer in today's game.

The kind of tennis played in majors have no relations to the game played at my local club by rec players. To suggest that the very best players in any sport need to be relatable to average players is a preposterous suggestion and has no basis in reality.