Is it not a big deal Dustin Johnson hit 3w/6i on the 18th green at PB?

[JESII]

David,

From my post #215;

In a vacuum, with every other launch characteristic held static, I agree that higher speed means higher spin off the driver...but...there are so many variables that make each players launch unique that you cannot assume without some other source that only the extreme longest hitter (hardest hitters) are gaining the advantage offered by the X because you want it to be so.

What other questions would you like me to answer as I'm certainI've answered every one o've seen you ask.

[JESII]

David,

Do you think the guys that play the ProV1x sacrifice spin to do so?

[Josh Tarble]

Actually David, there isn't much correlation between spin and swing speed anymore.

Bubba Watson, who has one of the higher swing speeds has one of the lowest spin rates on tour as evidence by these numbers:

http://www.rotaryswing.com/golf-instruction/golfequipment/golf-launch-monitor.php

Generally, spin is more a reflection on angle of attack than swing speed as evidenced by these Trackman numbers from Long Drive World Championships.

http://www.longdrivers.com/sites/default/files/documents/trackman2012.pdf

[Garland Bayley]

Actually David, there isn't much correlation between spin and swing speed anymore.

Are you that the ball staying on the club face longer does not correlate to higher spin?

Bubba Watson, who has one of the higher swing speeds has one of the lowest spin rates on tour as evidence by these numbers:

http://www.rotaryswing.com/golf-instruction/golfequipment/golf-launch-monitor.php

Generally, spin is more a reflection on angle of attack than swing speed as evidenced by these Trackman numbers from Long Drive World Championships.

http://www.longdrivers.com/sites/default/files/documents/trackman2012.pdf

I looked quickly through your longdrivers.com link and didn't see angle of attack mentioned on any of the tables.
Isn't spin determined by clubhead loft? With a low clubhead loft you get a low spin. Pair that with an upward angle of attack and you get a long ball. With a higher clubhead loft and a downward angle of attack, you will get a higher spin that may launch at the same angle but will fall short due to the higher spin. Assuming long drive competition swing speeds of course.

[Jim Nugent]

Jim N,

Is that the next wave of longer golfer or the next wave of technology or both that you're waiting to see.

I so often hear about the college players (or younger) who send the ball into orbit now -- much further than today's PGA pro's -- I wonder when they will make their mark on the tour. 

Jim,

The number of long hitting college kids who make the PGA Tour is irrelevant.

What's relevant is the disconnect between the the golfer and the architecture he was intended to interface with

Pat, I agree completely with your second sentence, and suspect the only way to preserve the architecture is with a tournament ball (unlikely to occur). 

My question is whether, without more technological advances, players on tour will keep hitting the ball further.  Will today's young bombers soon regularly drive the ball 330 yards on top tour courses?   

[DMoriarty]

Jim Sullivan,  As for unanswered questions, recently I asked . . .

So how would getting rid of balls that only benefit the elite of the elite hurt average golfers or make the game less fun?  Please don't tell me again how you think Dustin Johnson could hit it just as far with a less "optimal" ball.  I am asking about the average golfer. How would the average golfer be hurt if the ProV1x was deemed non-conforming?

A bit before I asked:

Do you think the average golfer gained as many yards by switching from the Balata to the ProV1 as the elite player?   How about if each had switched to the ProV1x?   And how about if the "average" golfer was closer to 80 mph than 90 mph?

You now ask . . .

David,

Do you think the guys that play the ProV1x sacrifice spin to do so?

I think that, generally, if their swing speeds and spin rates were high enough, then, all else being equal, a ball like the original ProV1x* would have provided them with relatively more distance off the tee.  It is essentially the "optimization" you keep talking about.  Only it didn't work as well for golfers who didn't swing fast enough and with enough spin. 

As far is "sacrificing spin" I don't really understand what you mean.  Many of them were trying to  minimize spin to get more distance, something that only works at higher swing speeds.  Or do you mean around the green?  With short irons? Off the tee?

Why don't you tell me what you think, and then maybe I'll get a better idea of what you are asking?

[*Just so we are clear, I am referring to the original iteration of the ball, as compared to the other balls in the market at the time.  I think the balls have evolved since then, and I haven't really kept up with how.]
_________________________________________________________

Bryan,

So we are on the same page, where are you getting your statistics for the lpga and the pgatour? 

Why does it surprise you that the women are producing less spin than the men?  Do think think this might have something to do with their relative swing speeds?

Perhaps you'd better get out there and tell the ladies that the ProV's aren't the right answer for their slow swing speeds.   

Slow swing speeds?  I thought you said they averaged 94 mph?  That is hardly a slow swing speed.
________________________________________________________________

Josh,

Those are interesting websites, but I am not sure they support your hypothesis that "there isn't much correlation between spin and swing speed anymore."  For that we'd have to hold everything constant and then examine spin at a series of swing speeds, wouldn't we?  Or are you saying that Bubba's exact swing and equipment at 100 mph would produce less spin than his swing and equipment at 125 mph?  That'd really be something, if that is what you are saying. 

On the other hand, I think those websites further suggest just how crazy this new technology (equipment and optimization) has become at the top levels.  But what do you suppose happens when balls designed to spin so little when hit at 125 mph are instead hit at 85 mph?   Not much is my guess. 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jim N,

Is that the next wave of longer golfer or the next wave of technology or both that you're waiting to see.

I so often hear about the college players (or younger) who send the ball into orbit now -- much further than today's PGA pro's -- I wonder when they will make their mark on the tour. 

Jim,

The number of long hitting college kids who make the PGA Tour is irrelevant.

What's relevant is the disconnect between the the golfer and the architecture he was intended to interface with

Pat, I agree completely with your second sentence, and suspect the only way to preserve the architecture is with a tournament ball (unlikely to occur). 

My question is whether, without more technological advances, players on tour will keep hitting the ball further. 

Jim,

I think so, but, not in leaps and bounds.  But, I could be wrong about that as well.

And, I can't imagine that there won't be more hi-tech advances, especially in shafts.

I do know that one ball company was testing the paint/collorant/ball surface to reduce wind resistance a few years ago.
I can't see why hi-tech wouldn't continue to be employed to gain distance.

Will today's young bombers soon regularly drive the ball 330 yards on top tour courses?   

I believe that 300+ will be the new "norm"

[Peter Pallotta]

This reminds me that I'm still annoyed at myself for a decision I made a bunch of years ago. It was the first and only time I was ever tested/fitted for a driver, though even then I treated it too informally/casually. It was lunch time and I took off my suit jacket and, in my street shoes, stepped up to the tee at the back of the store and swung a TM 580 driver a few times to warm up, and then put down a ball and starting having my stats tracked. I still remember them - swing speed of 101, and spin (with the 10.5 degree driver, regular shaft) of about 2700. The guy then handed me a 9 degree driver with a stiff shaft, and i hit that, and while i don't remember the stats exactly I do remember him telling me that this latter driver was the one for me, as it bought down my spin rate to a better range and the dispersion (?) was narrower. BUT, since I'd read all those darn Golf Digest types telling me that I should have more loft and I didn't think a relatively new and poor golfer like me should go with a stiff shaft, I went against that advice and the numbers/stats and went with the 10.5 degree regular shafted TM 580 driver, which i still use.

So, are you guys telling me that if I was using the 9 degree, stiff shafted driver I should have bought and was swinging at, say, 103 mph (after warm up and in golf shoes), and was using a ProV1x to reduce my spin, I could be hitting drives as far as say, Jim Furyk or Brian Gay or Fred Funk? Please don't tell me that, well, please DO tell me that, but that's strange to me.

[Garland Bayley]

Peter,

I believe if you are swinging over 100 mph you should be using a stiff shaft. And those other guys you mention are probably not using a stiff shaft. They are probably using an extra stiff shaft.

[JESII]

David,

I was still challenging your premise that only 120+MPH guys benefit from the ProV1x and I don't think you've made your case at all. I think the guys that pick the x do so for reduced spin regardless of their swing speed.

But I'll still answer...the ProV1x benefits the average golfer by giving them the ball striking characteristics of the rock hard balls most of them used with the short game benefits of the balata without cutting so easy. It's a better ball than the options for "average players" than 20 years ago.

[DMoriarty]

Jim,  

Could you please point out to me where I claimed "only 120+MPH guys benefit from the ProV1x?"  

With respect Jim, it seems like you are just making shit up. You don't expect me to make a case for things you are just making up, do you?

Your theory that someone with an average swing speed would benefit from hitting the ProV1x isn't even worth addressing.  Likewise your claim that golfers choose the ProV1x "regardless of swing speed."   If they do, they are idiots.

And you still haven't answered most of the questions above.

[Garland Bayley]

Jim,  

Could you please point out to me where I claimed "only 120+MPH guys benefit from the ProV1x?"  

With respect Jim, it seems like you are just making shit up. You don't expect me to make a case for things you are just making up, do you?

Your theory that someone with an average swing speed would benefit from hitting the ProV1x isn't even worth addressing.  Likewise your claim that golfers choose the ProV1x "regardless of swing speed."   If they do, they are idiots.

And you still haven't answered most of the questions above.

I believe Jim meant that if a player is using a Pinnacle with average swing speed, then he would benefit from hitting the ProV1x. Of course there are a lot of other balls he would benefit from too, like the three piece SnakeEyes tour that will cost him about the same as his two piece Pinnacle.

[Doug Siebert]

I believe Jim meant that if a player is using a Pinnacle with average swing speed, then he would benefit from hitting the ProV1x. Of course there are a lot of other balls he would benefit from too, like the three piece SnakeEyes tour that will cost him about the same as his two piece Pinnacle.

How would he benefit from hitting a Pro V1x?  I believe today's Pinnacles are not like the Pinnacles of old, and have much better control around the greens than they used to.  Maybe not as good as a Pro V1/V1x, but whether that extra control benefits him depends on how good of a player / how good his short game is.  A guy for whom breaking 90 is a great day probably couldn't tell the difference, or see the benefit.

He certainly wouldn't be any longer with the Pro V1x, if for no other reason than he's already playing a ball that spins less.  Depending on other factors, he might see more distance from a higher spinning ball.  Between a V1 and a V1x, it is very likely he'd be longer with the V1.

[Garland Bayley]

Trust me Doug, there are lots of guys who can't break 90 that can see the difference between playing the three piece ball with a urethane cover versus playing a two piece ball with a surlyn cover. These guys can put significant back spin on the three piece ball that they can't get from the two piece ball even on short pitches.

[Bryan Izatt]

David,

If I understand your premise it is that the ProV1x and its ilk, when they were introduced either offered no advantage or perhaps a disadvantage to players with lower swing speeds while high swing speed players 

I don't recall that you've ever stated what you consider lower swing speeds, or high swing speeds either.  Personally my swing speed varies between 95 and 100 mph and I consider that medium to slow (at least partially because I used to be faster when I was younger).  From the one time I played with you some years ago at Rustic, I'd guess that you are a slower swinger than I am (or was).  Are you a slow swinger by your own definition?  What is your speed range for slow swingers, and fast swingers? 

Where do you think the crossover point in the slope is, between the ProV1x and whatever your comparison ball is?  How much difference in the slope of the distance/swing speed "curves" do you think there is?  Quintavalla said it was 3.2 yards per MPH for the balls he tested.  What do you "think" it was for the Tour Balata or whatever other ball you have in mind?  Do the math and let me know what you think the advantage was for the higher swing speeds.

Vis-a-vis the LPGA tour swing speed average, I thought 94 mph was slow because it was lower than my swing speed, and I considered myself slow.  I take it that you don't think 94 mph is slow in the context you're talking about, and that the ladies (and me) are justified in using ProV1 and ProV1x-type balls.  Again, what kind of slowness are we talking about?  I was measuring my wife's swing speed today - it's around 40 mph. I'd guess that's slower than you have in mind. Certainly I don't think that there would be any measurable difference in her distance based on different balls.

Re the LPGA and PGA Tour data I posted, it comes from the Trackman site.  They have similar data for 6 irons for the pros.  They also have Trackman Combine average data for thousands of amateurs that they've classified into scratch, 5, 10, average (14.5) and bogey (18) categories.  There is amateur data for both men and women.  BTW, the average driver swing speed for both the average and the bogey golfer is 92 mph. Where is that on "your" slowness scale?

[JESII]

David,

You're right. You didn't pick out the number 120, I did. You simply reiterated my question several times so I assumed that represented you "elite of the elite" well enough.

So, you tell me. What MPH is the breakpoint for benefiting from the ProV1x?

Jim,

If not even the all of the top golfers swing hard enough (and with enough spin) to benefit from this ball, do you really think the average golfer is benefitting from this new technology?  Wasn't that your point earlier?  That a rollback of this type of technology would make golf less fun for the other 150 golfers?  So how would getting rid of balls that only benefit the elite of the elite hurt average golfers or make the game less fun?  Please don't tell me again how you think Dustin Johnson could hit it just as far with a less "optimal" ball.  I am asking about the average golfer.

[JMEvensky]

So, you tell me. What MPH is the breakpoint for benefiting from the ProV1x?

Relative to the Pro V1 or any other ball?

Regarding good players,my understanding is the same as yours--choosing the Pro V1 or X was rarely about the extra few yards off the driver with the X. Most who chose the Pro V1 were willing to give up the driver yardage for the benefits elsewhere through their bag.

[DMoriarty]

Bryan,

I don't think 100mph is slow and I don't think 95 is slow either.  I have read many varying estimates for average swing speeds and I would guess average is somewhere around 85 mph for men, but this number would be lower if we figure in women, seniors, etc..  (People used to commonly say that 80 was average for men, but for some reason this feels too slow to me.)  As for what "slow" means, if we work off that then I guess "Slow" would be significantly below average, say below 80 for men.  This is why I keep asking how these balls perform at 80 mph or 90 mph or even at 60 or 70 mph.  Most golfers don't swing or above at 100 or 95 mph, or even at 90 mph for that matter.

As for my swing speed, I am not sure. Faster than your wife's swing, I hope. Last time I was on a measuring device (probably 10 years ago) I think it was low 90's but I can't remember for sure.  Next time I buy balls, I can check if you want, but I am not sure why it matters. Anecdotally, I don't think I gained much (if any) distance from the ProV1 over the Professional or similar balls, and back when I still had some balatas and professionals I did experiment a bit on the course with those balls. If I had to guess, I'd say that I got similar distance performance out of the ProVl, the professional, and the balata, and got less distance with the ProV1x. But my game is inconsistent and I try not to use it for the basis for much. That said, my experiences were consistent with my observations of others.
___________________________________________________________________

Bryan and Jim,

As for the "break even point" with the 2003 version of the ProV1x, I don't have an exact number in mind.  As Jim says, it would have varied somewhat for different golfers based on other factors, but the number that usually gets thrown around is that the ball potentially benefited those with swing speeds of 105+ mph, and the potential for relative benefit was greater as swing speeds (and spin rates) went up. Both Callaway and Taylor Made have new balls coming out this year that according to the early press reports versions of those balls are targeted toward golfers with swing speeds of 105+mph. (Titleist has shifted away from this sort of marketing but you used to see the same thing about the ProV1x.)

I don't think these balls will benefit a golfer with a 70 or 80 mph swing speed, or less.  Looking at the trackman chart Bryan posted, one can see that the slower swingers need relatively more spin to attain distance. Technology aimed at minimizing spin doesn't help them.

[JESII]

JME,

I was asking specifically about what speed is the breakpoint where the ProV1 doesn't go any further but the ProV1x does. That seems to be David's implication when he asks "what difference does it make to the average player is the ProV1x is banned, they get no benefit from it anyway..."

My contention is that it's not a speed issue, but rather a spin issue. Is spin correlated to speed? In my opinion, yes...but that there are a handful of other variables more closely correlated to spin. Because of that I think David's suggestion to ban the Prov1x because it only helps the extreme fastest swingers falls flat...

His chart is a good example...there are more modest to short drivers in there than long drivers. It also illustrates that half, or less, of Titleist guys use the x which tells me it's advantages didn't outweigh the negatives for a large number of their longest hitters.

[JESII]

Technology aimed at minimizing spin doesn't help them.

Except for the high spin slow swingers...say 80 mph but a high launch and high spin.

[DMoriarty]

Jim I think your experience as a good player might be making this hard for you to comprehend.  The combination you are suggesting is, at best, very rare.  

Using the chart posted by Bryan, at a swing speed of 75 mph, the "optimal" drive spins at 2720 to 3720, depending on "attack angle."  Do you really think there are a bunch of golfers out there swinging at 75 miles per hour and maintaining good (for them) ball speed, but who are struggling to get their driver spin rate down into the mid-3000's?  (And do you really think they are going to be able to spin a ProV1x with a driver in the mid-3000's without totally sacrificing ball speed?)

[Garland Bayley]

Perhaps now would be a good time to remind folks of Dan Hermann's experience with the trial ball from the USGA with higher spin. What they found is that Dan's wife, with a slow swing speed needed the higher spin ball to get extra distance. Her driving distance increased with the higher spin trial ball.

As I pointed out before, the cross over has been shown to be about 85 mph. Below 85 mph a player would get more distance with balata. Over 85 mph a player gets more distance with the modern ball.

[DMoriarty]

Garland,  I don't remember seeing that.  I would have guessed maybe five mph higher, but 85 certainly sounds reasonable.  

When you say it "has been shown to be about 85" do you have a particular study in mind?  I would like to see it if you do.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jim Sullivan,

In the words of Hank Haney, when it comes to golf, "distance" is KING.

And, when it comes to "distance" clubhead speed is "KING"

I'm not sure exactly what it is that you're in denial about.

The fact is that wonderful golf courses and their architectural features, meant to influence and integrate with the golfer's game, have become obsolete, due primarily to technology.

Courses can't continue to be lengthened to offset the increase in distance, and features just can't be picked up and moved in order to reintroduce them to the modern golfer from the perspective of influence and interfacing.

So, what exactly is your point, which somehow seems tied into denial ?

[Garland Bayley]

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

Gives max total distance for 80 mph swing with 4000 rpm, for 100 mph with 3300 rpm, for 120 mph with 2400 rpm.

Unfortunately, I did not make a record of the original study I read which was from a more official source, so I can't give you that. Every time I mention it, I get lots of members of the website disbelieving me, so I did make a record of this when I ran across it. From it you can extrapolate at least that the crossover probably lies between the 80 and 100 mph swings.