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

[DMoriarty]

Your test would be better than mine?  Great.  Go ahead and conduct your test and let us know how it goes.

In the interim, am still hoping you will answer the question you asked me: 

Is your question/theory; we could take two golfers, an average player with 90mph swing speed and an elite player with say 120 mph swing speed, both hitting Titleist Balata's and comparing to ProV1's, the average player would not gain as much distance advantage as the elite player?

So how about it?  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?

 

[Patrick_Mucci]

David,

Your question is the crux of the issue.

[Grant Saunders]

Your test would be better than mine?  Great.  Go ahead and conduct your test and let us know how it goes.

In the interim, am still hoping you will answer the question you asked me: 

Is your question/theory; we could take two golfers, an average player with 90mph swing speed and an elite player with say 120 mph swing speed, both hitting Titleist Balata's and comparing to ProV1's, the average player would not gain as much distance advantage as the elite player?

So how about it?  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?

 

David

I dont think the average player used balata. They tended to use surlyn covered balls which provided them distance and importantly durability. Better players sacrificed that distance on offer because feel and spin where key to their games.

[DMoriarty]

David

I dont think the average player used balata. They tended to use surlyn covered balls which provided them distance and importantly durability. Better players sacrificed that distance on offer because feel and spin where key to their games.

Maybe so, but I am trying to stay within the context of Jim's question.     Also, I think there were plenty of  golfers at or near Jim's "90 mph average" who used balata.  As for the reason others didn't, my guess is that it had much more to do with cost/durability than with performance.

[JESII]

David,

I wasn't asking that question for you, or anyone, to answer. I asked it as a way to figure out and clarify what you thought the experiment should be. Bryan found pretty interesting and compelling stuff and you told him he was going through the wrong exercise...just trying to set the table so everyone can talk about the same thing.

As to my guess at the result of that kind of test...I truly have no idea. Sorry. I don't even know how you would gauge the results. Flat yardage increase can't be the answer, neither can carry distance alone. Percentage increase? Maybe...but what driver will you use? the old ones more suited to the balata or the new ones more suited to the ProV?

The reason I say it can't involve your one imaginary friend, Bryan's one imaginary friend or my two fake guinea pigs is that individual equipment and ball striking characteristics will skew the results tremendously.


Can you show me hard proof that specific PGA Tour pros hit the ProV1X further than the ProV1?

[DMoriarty]

Jim,  Bryan had asked me a question (Reply 157) and I tried to answer it (Reply 163).  I am not sure to what you are referring when you say that Brian came up with "compelling stuff" or that I told him he was going through the wrong exercise.  If you clarify I'd be glad to address it.

As for the rest, I don't think it beyond the realm of science to figure out the relative benefits of different balls to different golfers. Or one could just look around, observe higher handicap players, read posts, etc. to get an unscientific idea of who has benefited the most from these new balls. It seems pretty obvious to me and, frankly, I am amazed we are even debating this aspect of the issue. As for my "imaginary friend," he was a low (2-3) index used a modern, state of the art driver designed to be played with the modern ball. It wasn't some old club optimized to work with a balata.  I think it is a bit much for you to entirely discount this stuff, as if "optimization" would suddenly have given him 20-30 yards with the ProV1x but not with the Balata.  This guy may have been an old fart, but he spent a lot of time and energy getting his equipment right.   And while the experiment was by no means perfect, it was a heck of a lot better than anything you've come up with.

Can you show me hard proof that specific PGA Tour pros hit the ProV1X further than the ProV1?

Here is a chart I did a some years ago listing the Titleist players who had switched to the ProV1x in 2003, the year the ball came out. (This according to information on the Titlelist website and other sources at the time.)  Keep in mind that most had already experienced a huge jump in distance with the ProV1 a few years before, and so most of these gains are on top of that previous jump.  As you can see every player but one gained yardage upon making the switch, and most gained substantial yardage.  

[Jim Nugent]

David, was the ball only significant change?

[DMoriarty]

Many pros tweak their equipment every year, but I am unaware of any other significant change which comes close to explaining these across the board increases among those who switched to the ProV1x.  I certainly am not aware of any fast acting, instant exercise program suddenly made all these guys a lot stronger all at once.   

Does anyone else remember the 2003 tournament at Kapalua?  It was the first tournament where Els and a few others used the ProV1x.   They were hitting it so far beyond everyone else that it was shocking to watch. Golfers with faster swing speeds came around to the ball pretty quickly after that.

[Bryan Izatt]

Jim,

My friend is real.  I also know who David's test case is.  I'd agree that neither test passes muster to prove anything.  They are interesting uncontrolled anecdotal pieces of information.  Mine is better because I have two points  - mine and my friend's.   

At my swing speed, the Balata was a couple of MPH slower than the ProV1.  My "real" friend might have had the same or marginally higher ball speed with the Balata at 115 MPH.  I don't think the difference is statistically significant given the number of variables that were uncontrolled. 

BTW, don't hold your breath too long on Patrick.  You know we'll never hear about that again until the next time he misremembers a fact.


David,   

When you measured Latex Lynn did you optimize his launch conditions for the Balata as well as the Pro V1x?  You mentioned he had optimized his equipment, but that was presumably for the modern ball.  He may have gotten even better results with the Balata and his current equipment.  And, no I didn't optimize my or my friend's launch conditions.  I'm still trying to figure out how to get to a positive angle of attack.  The distance gains are so appealing.

Vis-a-vis your theory about different slopes on the distance/swing speed chart, it seems very likely that the slopes of the lines for different balls, past or present are all different.  In fact, it's almost impossible that they'd all be exactly the same.  The reason I asked if you had any stidies supporting it was simply that it would be fascinating to know, even if it is only for different kinds of modern balls.  I like the Wilson Staff Duo for it's soft feel, but wonder if I gaining or losing distance compared to other ball. 

Given that different balls would produce different distances for my swing, or your swing, or Jim's makes me wonder if it's worth trying to optimize the ball I use.  I used a lot in play, but really can't note any consistent difference in distance.  It occurs to me that, although the slopes may differ and the starting points may differ, the differences might be quite small.  For instance the results I posted above, I think show a 3.2 yard increase in distance per MPH (a bit higher than I've seen in other controlled studies).  If it were 3.0 or 3.4 yards per MPH in optimal conditions, would we notice the difference given all the other variables - launch angle, spin rate, efficiency factor that are inherent in each individual shot we take.

Vis-a-vis the Balata vs Pro V1 slope difference creating an extra advantage for high speed drivers, I am of the opinion that my one anecdotal uncontrolled test doesn't support the concept of a significantly higher slope for the Pro V1.  If you can find a 115 mph driver in your cadre, why don't you do the Latex Lynn test on them and let us know what the results are.

BTW, a slight nit to pick, you refer to the swing speed/distance relationship as a curve.  It is linear with a slight tail off at the top end, as you know.  Calling it a curve only leads to poor souls like Patrick thinking that it is an exponential curve.    

[JESII]

David,

Hitting balls in a cornfield while talking to yourself does not make it scientific...


Regarding your chart from a couple posts ago; thank you, that's good stuff.

A couple questions/thoughts on the numbers;

How much yardage would you allocate to driver optimization? It's certainly going to be greater than zero...those were the days of when 460cc were coming on the scene and people were figuring out how to launch the ball as high as possible.
How many players did Titleist have playing their golf balls in 2003? Are these all of the ProV1x guys?
Does the LPGA Tour offer stats in any way comparable?

As I said before, I think you'll find the decision between using the ProV1 and the ProV1x revolves more around spin that speed. If you have any other friends, find the one that loses the most distance on into the wind shots and do the V1 versus X experiment with them. Do the same with any friend that hits it really low.

[Garland Bayley]

Your test would be better than mine?  Great.  Go ahead and conduct your test and let us know how it goes.

In the interim, am still hoping you will answer the question you asked me: 

Is your question/theory; we could take two golfers, an average player with 90mph swing speed and an elite player with say 120 mph swing speed, both hitting Titleist Balata's and comparing to ProV1's, the average player would not gain as much distance advantage as the elite player?

So how about it?  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?

 

David

I dont think the average player used balata. They tended to use surlyn covered balls which provided them distance and importantly durability. Better players sacrificed that distance on offer because feel and spin where key to their games.

For someone with a "Golf Data Solutions" avatar, you seem to be unfamiliar with the data. David has been asking about average players with an 90 mph, or 80 mph swing. The mathematical models of golf ball performance show that at around 85 mph the distance plots cross over for high spin balls such as balata vs low spin balls such as ProV1. The average golfer with the 80 mph swing gains distance by using balata. They lose distance by using surlyn covered balls, contrary to your assertion above.

[JESII]

Garland,

I assume you're speaking to Grant, but you [quoted] parts of my dialogue with David...who were you addressing?

[Garland Bayley]

Garland,

I assume you're speaking to Grant, but you [quoted] parts of my dialogue with David...who were you addressing?

Jim,

I haven't noticed a "Golf Data Solutions" avatar on your posts, nor on David's.

[Doug Siebert]

At the very least, this chart conclusively destroys the assertion we often hear that the reason players hit so much further than they did 15 years ago is "fitness".  These players did not all happen to get fit during the fall 2002 off-season.

So let's postulate the distance gains either came from the ball, the driver, optimization, or some combination of the three - at least I'm not aware of another argument aside from those three and fitness.  In the context of rolling back distance to save the game from itself (screwing up old courses, making golf more expensive by building larger golf courses, etc.) does the cause of the distance gain really matter?

I think everyone would agree it is impossible to roll back optimization, so that leaves the ball and the driver.  Between the two, which benefits the average player more, the ball of today versus the ball of 20 years ago, or the driver of today versus the driver of 20 years ago?  I think nearly everyone would agree the driver benefits them more.  IMHO, the driver went from the most difficult club in the bag to master to the easiest club in the bag to master between say 1980 (whenever the first metal woods appeared) to 2001 when the first 400cc driver I'm aware of made its appearance.  I just don't think you could ever get the support of the average player for something that rolled back the driver size to 260cc as some have recommended.

So how to do a rollback then?  What has been the primary source of the distance gain?  It sure hasn't been increased swing speed - then there wouldn't be so many guys like me who hit longer drives when it was pretty clear our highest swing speeds were in our past.  It can't be a "faster" ball, since the initial velocity rule has been in place since the 80s.  I believe one of the major reasons has been spin control.  I've always hit the ball with too much spin, modern equipment has let me "buy" lower spin rather than earning it via swing improvement.  I'm curious to try the SLDR (if the snow ever melts) to see if I can finally see what it is like to have my drives actually go somewhere after landing when I'm not playing on brown fairways.

So how to roll back the spin changes?  I believe they had two sources, multilayer balls and larger driver heads allowing for messing around with the weighting characteristics.  So let's take those away.  First, eliminate multiple layers from the ball.  You change the rules - the ball must have a cover, which must be uniform and has a rather small maximum allowable thickness, and must have a core, which must be uniform.  Require a minimum amount of allowable spin when Iron Byron hits it with a driver under a several impact/launch scenarios.  With no layers, there's no more engineering the ball to behave differently spin-wise at different swing speeds.

The driver must also be rolled back.  But there is no "driver" in the rule book, is there?  Nor is the driver the only problem in the world of 300 yard 3Ws.  No, this rule change should extend to ALL clubs that are hollow (defined as having a density of less than 0.1 since I know many hollow clubs are filled with foam or similar material to control the sound)  Such clubs would be limited in their ability to locate the weight front or back or high or low on the face (side to side is fine, let the average players have clubs that are weighted and/or adjustably weighted to attempt to control their slice)  I don't really know enough about how this works to know what the exact limits would be, but I'd say there should be a rule about how far from the center of the front of the face the CoG could be, either up or down or front to back.

[DMoriarty]

Bryan,

I didn't "optimize" launch conditions for either ball. Lynn used his state of the art (at the time) driver, which he normally used with modern balls.

Regarding your measures, you measured initial ball speed but don't mention spin. I'd think that'd be a key variable when comparing the performance characteristics of the ProV1x to the Balata.  Likewise, I don't think your data tells us much of anything about the relative slopes at various swing speeds for different balls.

Lastly, while the slopes look straight for a bit, they are curves.
_____________________________________________________________________

Jim,  

Regarding the PGA tour data, you asked about "driver optimization."  My assumption is that the PGA tour pros were playing with "optimized" equipment in both years.   In fact, switching to the ProV1x was part of the "optimization" process for these golfers.  They switched because they could hit the ProV1x longer.     I am unaware of any year-over-year optimization revolution that exactly corresponded with the release of the ProV1x.   You aren't seriously suggesting that, despite those numbers, those golfers were not really benefiting distance wise from the ProV1x, are you?  

Regarding your other questions, those were all the players who switched based on the Titleist website info at the time. There were plenty of other Titleist players who did NOT switch to the ProV1x.  My assumption is that this too was an "optimization" decision.  They didn't switch because they didn't get a benefit like those who switched.   You also ask about LPGA stats.  With respect Jim, you seem to be grasping at straws to come up with reasons to discount what seem to be some pretty compelling stats regarding the switch to the ProV1 to the ProV1x.

As I said before, I think you'll find the decision between using the ProV1 and the ProV1x revolves more around spin that speed.

I agree that spin rates are key when considering which ball is best for elite players (which is why I don't quite understand whatever point Bryan is trying to make about initial velocity between a Balata and a ProV1x.)  Also, I think that, generally, elite players with higher swing speeds put more spin on the ball than do elite players with lower swing speeds.  When you extend this to average players with average swing speeds, balls like the ProV1x will never be the optimal ball.

As for your suggested further experiments, that's pretty funny given your disparaging comments about my past efforts to try and figure some of this stuff out.   By the way, my past efforts were on a launch monitor, not in a cornfield.

[Garland Bayley]

...

I think everyone would agree it is impossible to roll back optimization, so that leaves the ball and the driver.  Between the two, which benefits the average player more, the ball of today versus the ball of 20 years ago, or the driver of today versus the driver of 20 years ago?  I think nearly everyone would agree the driver benefits them more. 

I think you would be wrong about that. The driver is still attached to the longest shaft in the bag, and still causes "average" players the most difficulty in squaring the club face. Whereas, the ball is straighter than it used to be, which helps the "average" players that have trouble squaring the club face.

[JESII]

David,

I asked about the LPGA Tour because they would provide a better sample for the low end swing speed than you and Lynn in a cornfield.

[DMoriarty]

How so?   Do you think that anyone on the LPGA tour is out there hitting Balata balls?  Whether in a corn field or on a launch monitor?  If you have those numbers I'd love to see them, otherwise I think I'll stick with what I have.

You asked me to produce evidence "that specific PGA Tour pros hit the ProV1x further than the ProV1."  I think the chart above provides such evidence.   Of course now you seem to want to diminish the significance of even these numbers.   I think in the end you might just be more comfortable opining about this stuff without those pesky facts.  

Again Jim, you aren't seriously contending that the gains shown on the chart above were mainly attributable to factors other than the new ball, are you?

[JESII]

David,

Your question is the crux of the issue.

I disagree.

I'm happy to discuss it all day long, but the crux of the issue is why do clubs feel the need to change their golf course because Dustin Johnson hit a 6 iron onto the 18th green at Pebble Beach.

[JESII]

David,

I haven't denied the importance of any of it. The chart above is exponentially more valuable and credible than you out in a cornfield with a single person hitting balls. Please tell me you understand that...

I don't think they are as good, but I asked about LPGA stats because they are a much better proxy for the 95mph swinger than you and your cornfield. Please tell me you understand that as well.

I believe the vast majority of LPGA players use some version of today's two-piece balls. Did they also use three piece balls before the ProV1 explosion? I assume so but at a lower percentage than men. Did the women that switched from the Balata to the Professional to the ProV see similar increases (percentage wise)?

[JESII]

Is it not eye opening to you that half (or less) of the Titleist guys on Tour switched to the X?

In your chart above, how much yardage do you think it's fair to attribute to optimization? It's greater than 0, right?

[Garland Bayley]

Is it not eye opening to you that half (or less) of the Titleist guys on Tour switched to the X?

In your chart above, how much yardage do you think it's fair to attribute to optimization? It's greater than 0, right?

My recollection is that there were two discontinuous jumps in tour driving distance, in 2001, and in 2003. The jump in 2001 was attributed to the massive adoption of new ball technology. The jump in 2003 was attributed to the coming of age of technical equipment that allowed the players to find the right set up to fully take advantage of the new ball technology.

My recollection is that choosing a ProV1 vs a ProV1x was a primarily matter of taste on short game performance. However, it did allow a few players to get extra distance if that fit their tastes.

[Bryan Izatt]

David,

Regarding your measures, you measured initial ball speed but don't mention spin. I'd think that'd be a key variable when comparing the performance characteristics of the ProV1x to the Balata.  Likewise, I don't think your data tells us much of anything about the relative slopes at various swing speeds for different balls.  

The sim I was on didn't have a reliable spin module.  I thought I mentioned that.  Yes, clearly thee spin rate would be a key factor in ball flight and distance given any launch angle and initial speed.  My point was that the initial speeds were very similar.  How that turns into actual distance for each ball depends on angle of attack, dynamic loft, launch angle, actual spin rate, and drag coefficient of the ball. Rollout would depend on angle of descent, spin decay during flight and ball speed on landing and firmness and fatness of the landing area.

As a matter of interest, did you do your test on an indoor or outdoor Trackman?   The indoor ones are using an algorithm to arrive at distance.  I wonder how the algorithm deals with drag?

Agreed, my "data" doesn't say anything useful about slopes.  At most it says that the ball COR doesn't differ to much between the Balata and the ProV1.  That leaves spin (lift) and drag (cover and dimples) as the main determinants of distance.  The Trackman table I posted above suggests that spin can be affected by angle of attack and dynamic loft.  I wonder if our understanding of optimal launch conditions today were applied to the Balata balls in 2000 what distances might have been able to achieved.

[JESII]

I wonder if our understanding of optimal launch conditions today were applied to the Balata balls in 2000 what distances might have been able to achieved.

This is the heart of my argument against the roll-back guys. I believe the scientists will find a way to get Dustin Johnson hitting it just as far as he does today if we rolled back to the balata so why spend the energy if he's not coming to our courses anyway?

[Garland Bayley]

I wonder if our understanding of optimal launch conditions today were applied to the Balata balls in 2000 what distances might have been able to achieved.

This is the heart of my argument against the roll-back guys. I believe the scientists will find a way to get Dustin Johnson hitting it just as far as he does today if we rolled back to the balata so why spend the energy if he's not coming to our courses anyway?

Last I checked, scientists worked within the laws of physics. You seem to be contending they could find a way to violate them. They were not finding a way to violate them in all the years before they found a way to trick up the ball. You are proposing the ball stay the same and the scientists will suddenly get smarter? I think not.