A Modest Proposal . . . . . . . please don't burn me at the stake.

[Garland Bayley]

Pat,

I don't think so either.  Plus, some portion of distance gains since 1980 can be attributed to 460 cc heads, lightweight graphite shafts, and club and technique optimization.  Would all they have to be rolled back too?

Insignificant compared to the ball.

[Bryan Izatt]

Garland,

Do you have any factual data to support that claim?

[Garland Bayley]

Garland,

Do you have any factual data to support that claim?

Bryan,

We have gone over this again and again on this website. Tour driving stats showed two discrete jumps in distance. The first one came with the introduction of the new ball, the second one came when they discovered how to adjust their equipment to take full advantage of the new ball. All other gains were inconsequential to the magnitude of these two changes.

Tom Paul reported that the USGA determined that the new ball can be attributed for 25 yards increase in distance, which roughly corresponds two the sum of the two discrete jumps in distance gained. All other increases are dwarfed by this.

[Bryan Izatt]

Yes, it's been discussed a number of times, without much agreement.  Could you point out in the tour stats below where the two discrete jumps are.  Looks like a pretty smooth increase from 1995 to 2005.  It couldn't have been partly tour players swinging faster enabled by large heads and light shafts?

Don't remember the Tom Paul report.  Do you have a link to it?  What was the source?

[Garland Bayley]

Bryan,

The jumps are very obvious in your graph. Just look at average distance the year the new ball was fully adopted, and the year the equipment adjustment took place.

[Mike Hendren]

Tom Doak nailed it:  the small ball is the answer.

I'm sure ya'll are aware that the women's NCAA and WNBA basketball is smaller than the men's counterpart.

Bogey

[Bryan Izatt]

Garland,

If you are referring to 2000 - 2001 and 2002 - 2003 as the two jumps, they were about 8 - 9 yards each.  I've never heard anyone before try to attribute the 2002 - 2003 "jump" to optimization.  Was there no optimization before that?  

In any event, if the ball "jump" was 8 - 9 yards, then what were the causes of the other 20 - 22 yards of the increase of 30 yards between 1995 and 2005? You asserted that the other causes were insignificant.

_______________________


Bogey,

No doubt the small ball went further, and would again if reintroduced.  I doubt it would enable short hitters to all of a sudden carry shots substantially further.  It wouldn't allow my wife to carry it 175 instead of 100 yards, for instance.  I doubt that there is any miracle ball that could.  

[Bill_McBride]

Tom Doak nailed it:  the small ball is the answer.

Bogey

I spent the summer of 1962 in the Azores and played all the time with the 1.62" ball.  It was great fun and I guess worth a couple of strokes a round when you reached par 5's and short par 4's.    But you gave most or more of that back because the smaller ball was much more difficult to control in the short game, even with the putter!

[Sean_A]

If people actually think there is a problem the answer is twofold adn it doesn't require "sacrifices" by the golfers who least want to sacrifice (thats you folks!).

1. Cut par - create higher expectations for the expert golfer.  A move like this may even once and for all get the stupid notion of par for the bogey golfer well and truly out of their heads.  

2. Reduce the tools in the bag and create a loft range.  Make experts (those hoping to match par) play with 8 clubs between 15 and 50 degrees loft.

Attacking the idea of technology will never work because smart folks will always dream up ways around it.  

Ciao  

[Garland Bayley]

Bryan,

The jump do to optimization has often been stated on this website. That jump was a result of ball technology as it became common knowledge how to optimize your equipment to take advantage of the new ball.
So you have 16 to 18 yards gained in the two years combined. And, of course there was optimization outside of the one year aforementioned, which makes even more gain by the ball technology.
Tom Paul, who used to regularly talk with the USGA about technology, reported on this website their conclusion that the ball caused a 25 yard increase. So when you pick up all the additional small changes caused by the ball beyond just those highlighted in the two discrete jumps in distance, you are left with only 5 yards due to other factors. When you consider that players were making a 3 yard increase in 10 years before that, you are left with just a two yard increase due to your other factors. As I wrote before, insignificant.

[Bryan Izatt]

Garland,

Interesting logic, or new math, or something.........  

The jump do to optimization has often been stated on this website. That jump was a result of ball technology as it became common knowledge how to optimize your equipment to take advantage of the new ball.

Are you really saying that equipment optimization only resulted from the introduction of the Pro V1 type of ball?  Surely somebody already had or would have figured out there must be a way to optimize launch conditions regardless of what ball was in use.  To attribute the optimization distance gain to the ball is just plain silly.  

[Garland Bayley]

Garland,

Interesting logic, or new math, or something.........  

The jump do to optimization has often been stated on this website. That jump was a result of ball technology as it became common knowledge how to optimize your equipment to take advantage of the new ball.

Are you really saying that equipment optimization only resulted from the introduction of the Pro V1 type of ball?  Surely somebody already had or would have figured out there must be a way to optimize launch conditions regardless of what ball was in use.  To attribute the optimization distance gain to the ball is just plain silly.  

Break it down phrase by phrase and see if you can really see what it meant.

[Patrick_Mucci]

RJ,

While the ball is "hot", I tend to agree with Bryan, without longer, lightweight graphite shafts, oversized titanium and special compound heads, that "hot" ball would not perform as well.

Would it be so difficult for one fell sweep to dial back the ball and limit as follows.
Shafts at 46 inches max
90 gram weight minimum.
360 CC heads

Now, I doubt that any of that will happen, because of financial reasons, but, while I enjoy the benefits of today's equipment, I'd give it up for equipment circa 1980.

[Doug Siebert]

Do you think it is possible to engineer a single ball that has an initial velocity of 150 mph at a swing speed of say 90 mph (smash factor of 1.67) and has an initial velocity of 170 mph when struck with a swing speed of 120 mph (a smash factor of 1.41)?  Assuming that they had similar lift and drag characteristics they'd both conform to the ODS.  I'm doubtful that it is possible to design and build such a ball.  If you were regulating such a ball you'd have to decide what the permissible slope of the distance/ swing speed line is.  If the slope matched the 1980's era, it would not of course satisfy Gib's original premise.

I doubt there's anyone on this site qualified to answer that question.  I'd say it would at least be worth asking the boys at Titleist.

Even if it wasn't possible to create such a large divergence in smash factor, if you combined that with possibly different spin characteristics we know they can accomplish via multilayer balls, you might get closer to a similar end result.

We hear from time to time reports that the USGA is testing this and that, and having sample balls made.  I wish their process was a bit more transparent, because at this point they probably have a pretty good idea what approaches have a chance to work, and which are dead ends.  Knowing which is which would at least allow such discussions on GCA to be narrowed down a bit

[Pat Burke]

My experience
I was injured in 1997.
Played 2 events from August '07 through '98.
Was off all of '99 (post surgery)
When I was able to start playing in very late '99,
I still had the same equipment from my injury year in '97.

Signed with Bridgestone to play the Tour Accuracy (solid core).
Tested 3 different versions.  Had  always been a Maxfli guy btw.
When driver testing, I learned that I was now looking for about a 12 degree launch angle, rather than my previous 9degree.

In one afternoon, I picked up about 8-81/2 yards, with the same ball.  Went from an 8degree haed to a
9.5 degree.   Took me about 3 months to get used to the much higher ball flight.  Had to adjust
my driver swing a bit.
So my one person, no scientific observation, was that proper ball/launch fitting, gave me 8+yards carry.

I am now using an 11 degree driver, with a ProV1x (never could use the "x" before), and my spin rate
is way down, and I regained about 5-10 yards overall with another launch angle adjustment.

[Pat Burke]

Another story.
Found some Maxfli HT RM (Royal Maxfli) in my garage during a clean out.
These balls are from '97 I believe.  The "RM" ball was brought to the US Tour to
replace the HT.  The HT plant was destroyed in the huge Kobe earthquake, and the
first replacements that were made in the USA were awful.  Maxfli started bring the RM for
those of us who were looking for something different.

Anyway, I had to see what the difference was.  The Maxfli feels like a superball.
Bounce it on the club face, and it makes a quiet thud.

I hit a couple of 9 irons with ProV1x and 2 with the Maxfli.  I had about a 3-4 yard carry difference, longer with the ProV1
My 6 irons were less than 5 yards different (carry) on another hole.
I killed a couple drivers with the Maxfli on one hole.  They flew much lower, a bit more spin.
The ProV1x driver shots, carried right about to where the Maxflis ended up.  Guessing about a 10 yard carry difference.

Not making any statement, other than surprise at a 1997 wound ball, actually going as far as it did.
For the record, I fly my current driver about 265.

[David_Elvins]

David,
No gold tees? I'm surprised. They are being used increasingly often by our seniors. They are enjoying the game more. What's the harm? You don't have to play them.

No, I haven't been a member of a course with gold tees but to be fair none of the courses have been over 6700 yards.  

There are a few longer courses in the area that have tees near the start of the fairways that a few of the older golfers play (I would guess those aged 85+), and  I think they are pretty cool - there is definitely room for forward tees on long courses. But at the same time I played last years Australian Open venue (The Lakes) off the regular members tees with a couple of gentlemen approachng age 80 who would not have hit the ball more than 160 yards. They both shot around 90 and delighted in taking my money.  Just because they could not reach a lot of greens in regulation did not mean that they required special tees.  They played the course layed out on the day for everyone and played it their way.  It was great to watch and everyone enjoyed it.  

I definitely think that forward tees have a place, but on a well designed course I don't think they should be a signifcant feature.