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

[JESII]

Once Pandora's Box is opened...

[Patrick_Mucci]

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.

Jim,

In 1984, in Atanta, at the Mid-Amateur, Frank Hannigan and I discussed launch angles before anyone ever knew what they were.

Frank was of the opinion, that unlike the days when fairways weren't watered and a low running draw was a shot of choice, the high howitzer like trajectories produced the most distance amongst the Pros and better amateurs.

I had noticed that in the late 60's and early 70's, when I competed and observed Moss Beecroft and other top amateurs at Pinehurst # 2 during the North-South Amateur

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?

I would disagree with you.

In addition, if the "roll back" ball was a 1980 balata, I think it just might  go out of round very quickly.

Few people realize how much better you can putt with a ball that doesn't go out of round

[Garland Bayley]

...
So how to do a rollback then?  What has been the primary source of the distance gain?  ... I believe one of the major reasons has been spin control.  ...

So how to roll back the spin changes? ...  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.

I concur.

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.

Wouldn't the most significant roll back of the driver be to reduce max COR to .790 as it was for wooden drivers from the .830 allowed for modern spring back effect titanium drivers?

[Doug Siebert]

...

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.

If not "easiest" then certainly "one of the easiest".  Admittedly this is based on my recollection, but I imagine others would have similar recollections.  When I first started playing, it was before metal drivers, or at least before they were common.  I would guess that about 1/3 of all golfers even carried a driver, and of those who carried it, probably half hit it only a few times a round (the "let's see if this club is working for me today", and after a few bad drives deciding it isn't factor)  Being able to simply make solid contact on a consistent basis with the driver was the mark of a better player back then.  That changed a lot with the steel driver, and the phenomena of duffers not carrying a driver has pretty much disappeared with the advent of the 460cc Ti driver.

Today, almost every golfer carries and regularly uses a driver.  They may hit it wild - but those wild shots are hardly limited to just the driver for them!  For most golfers who aren't plus or scratch, the driver is a better choice than a 3W, even if the driver sometimes goes awry because it is practically impossible to mishit a shot with the modern driver.  Remember all those topped shots, undercuts, stubbed drives from hitting the ground behind the ball, foozled drives off the heel 40 yards off/left of the tee?  I used to see (and unfortunately, even occasionally hit) such drives all the time.  Now they're so rare that when I see one, even from a 20+ handicap, it stands out in my mind.  Some golfers may still have trouble squaring the clubface and still hit big slices, but it is rare to see someone who only slices with their driver.  The extra few inches may turn a 20 yard slice into a 25 or 30 yard slice, but these golfers have a slice swing, so it isn't surprising that they slice.

[Doug Siebert]

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.

When the Pro V1x came out, I switched to it and a couple shortish par 4s I used to try to drive just sort of "near" suddenly were not only within range but I occasionally drove OVER the green, which I had never done before.  Never.  Not once in over 20 years of playing that course.

I was using the same driver I was using with the Pro V1, using the same rather crappy swing I'd been using my whole life without optimization.  The only change was the Pro V1x.  I had gained distance with the Pro V1, but since I switched to a 400cc driver in April 2001 the same time I switched to the Pro V1, I couldn't say for certain how much was the ball and how much was the driver.  For the V1x I can state with certainty it was the ball, and I'd estimate it was at least 10 yards longer for me.

More to the point on that difference, in the last few years the difference between the V1x and V1 has shrunk for me, so I'd be hard pressed to tell the difference.  Why?  Because I'm getting close to 50, and I'm not as strong as I once was, so I'm sure my swing speed has dropped.  I think I can feel that it has dropped, because I feel like I'm swinging in slow motion when I swing a heavier club like a sand wedge (and not surprisingly, my distance loss in percentage terms has been largest on those heavier clubs)  I'm no longer fast enough to really get the same benefit from the Pro V1x I used to, in a few more years I wouldn't be surprised if using it caused me to lose distance.

[Garland Bayley]

Doug,

Your recollections are about the opposite of mine. Everyone except the slicers hit driver before the advent of metal woods. Slicers hit 3 wood or less, because the added back spin reduced the slice significantly.

[Doug Siebert]

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?

I think you have an inflated idea about how much the golfer must depend on the science for optimization.  It isn't all science with the golfers at the mercy of the scientists.  Golfers aren't dumb, they can see the effect when they try different things.  If you set up to hit low or high, hit with a descending/level/upswing blow, if you hit it low or high on the face.  These guys are pros, and have amazing control.  Granted, having launch monitor technology makes it more precise so you can zero in on the benefits more easily and capture every bit of benefit, but if it was possible to optimize yourself for use of a balata ball, do you really think that no one would have ever stumbled across that in the decades that ball was the standard for pros and better amateurs?

I started using the Pro V1 and a 400cc driver at the same time, in April 2001.  The very first round I played I knew something was really different, because I hit a 280 yard drive into a 20 mph.  I had never ever done anything like that in my life.  I've always been a high ball hitter who puts too much spin on it, so you can guess what my typical driver into a 20 mph wind looked like.  I pretty much teed the ball up the way I always had, but after a half dozen rounds I began to realize that when I hit the ball high on the face my drives carried further - even into the wind.  So I bought some longer tees to make it easier to do that.  Basically, I optimized myself, quite by accident.

Would I benefit from further optimization?  I have no doubt.  But I'm pretty sure I got the bulk of the benefit on my own, and didn't need a launch monitor to tell me how to do it.  Similar to how I fit myself for flex by feel, and when I had the opportunity to try True Temper's Shaft Lab in 2003 it told me I needed S400 for iron and X200 for wood.  Pretty damn close to the S500 and X100 I'd fit for myself.  I'd switched from a X100 steel shaft to a graphite shaft in the mid 90s, and fit that by feel also.  They measured the frequency of my shaft and found it was only a few cpm off X100.

I'm not a pro, or even as good of an amateur as many on this board.  In fact, I only play 20-30 times a year, and there are many here who play 5x as often.  If I can manage to fit myself that well by feel, I find to hard to believe any pro golfer couldn't do a much better job than me.  I just don't believe that they'd leave a lot on the table if they optimized themselves by feel and watching/measuring results, though if a million dollars were at stake I'd certainly agree having a proper optimization session where you can capture that little extra you can't get on your own is totally worth the time.

[Garland Bayley]

I didn't take Jim's post to mean that pros could be optimized to hit the balata ball as far as they hit the ProV1. I took it to mean science would come up with a new technology to do it.

The pros had played a lifetime with the balata ball before the ProV1. They were undoubtedly optimized or nearly so with that ball just by trial and error. I don't see them gaining anything of significance from optimization to the balata ball.

[DMoriarty]

Jim,

Just for you, I took a quick look at the LPGA stats.  They didn't experience anything like the distance jumps seen on the men's side. I guess there must have been a glass ceiling on optimization and fitness in 2003.  
 

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

Not at all.  This has been my point from the beginning.  That ball only benefited those with extremely high swing speeds who were looking to "optimize" by decreasing spin.

But is it eye opening for you?  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. How would the average golfer be hurt if the ProV1x was deemed non-conforming?  

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

I couldn't put a number on it, and I don't really think your question makes much sense.  I refuse to pretend optimization was suddenly invented in the month between 2002 and 2003. The numbers for both 2002 and 2003 reflect distances with "optimized" equipment. The big difference is these golfers on the chart had a better ball choice for their "optimization" in 2003.  Is it possible there were some improvements in other aspects of optimization in 2003?  Sure, but it is impossible to unwind them from the change in the ball.  If you think otherwise, feel free to try to support that with some actual facts.

For example, you could go back and look at the players who had switched to the ProV1 (or comparable balls) in 2001 or 2002, but not to the ProV1x (or comparable balls) in 2003.  If you do, what you will find you is that these golfers did not experience the kind of distance gains as did those who switched.  So was this some special edition "optimization?"  Limited only to those who switched to the ProV1x?
_________________________________________________

Bryan,  I used an indoor launch monitor which presumably based its calculation on ball speed and spin.  It would be interesting to know the degree to which a balata could be "optimized."  While it doesn't directly answer that question, the trackman data you posted might hint at the major hurdle of such efforts for high swing speeds, while at the same time suggesting a reason why recent the technological advances in the ball help don't really help the average players.  At slower swing speeds, it is "optimal" to have relatively more spin on the ball, and at higher swing speeds it is "optimal" to have less.   So who does a low a spin ball benefit?

[Doug Siebert]

While it doesn't directly answer that question, the trackman data you posted might hint at the major hurdle of such efforts for high swing speeds, while at the same time suggesting a reason why recent the technological advances in the ball help don't really help the average players.  At slower swing speeds, it is "optimal" to have relatively more spin on the ball, and at higher swing speeds it is "optimal" to have less.   So who does a low a spin ball benefit?

To expand on this a bit, one of the arguments that has been made against rolling back the ball is that the distance offered by the Pro V1/V1x has always been available to golfers in the form of balls such as the Top Flite.  My experience in the 80s/90s comparing distance between a Titleist Balata or Professional and a Top Flite doesn't bear that out, but let's say that's the case.

We don't need to, for example, lop 10% off the distance for all balls, penalizing 300 yard hitters by 30 yards and 180 yard hitters by 18 yards.  We don't need to make low spin balls like the 1980s Top Flite illegal.  We don't even need to make balls that act like a Pro V1x when hit by a driver illegal.  All we have to do is make balls that act like a Pro V1x off a driver illegal if they also act like a Pro V1x does when struck by a quarter wedge.  If it acts like a 1980 era Top Flite when struck by a quarter wedge, then it doesn't matter what it does when struck with a 120 mph driver.  Add a one ball rule for amateurs and you're done.

With even a simple change like this, things would sort themselves out pretty well.  I'm not saying we couldn't do better with a more fine tuned and well-researched rule change, but this simple change would go a long way toward rolling things back to the 1980s/1990s.  Newer drivers have better COR, and I'm sure that accounts for something too, so it wouldn't be a complete rollback, but like I said this is suggested only as a way to get us a good portion of the way there, not turn back the clock completely.

Better players would deliberately give up that yardage they gained in 2001-2003, because they need/want that control around the greens.  The 20 handicap who hits the ball a mile and has no clue where it is going will still play the Top Flite type ball like he always has because his only claim to fame is hitting it a long way.  But no one is going to build 7700 yard courses for that guy, he's irrelevant in that respect.

[Bryan Izatt]

David,

Re the LPGA, Titleist currently lists 83 players using their balls.  All but one of them use ProV1 or ProV1x.  The outlier uses the NXT Tour. 

The average swing speed on the LPGA is 94 mph (vs 113 for the male Tour).  Their average spin rate 2611 rpm (which surprisingly is a little less than the average on the PGA Tour).  The average Angle of Attack on the LPGA is +3* (whereas it is -1* for the men).  Seems like the ladies have got the optimization thing down better than the men.  I've really got to figure out a swing change to get that positive Angle of Attack.

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.   

[Bryan Izatt]

David,

Re optimization, I noted that Pat Burke related a bit of his experience with optimization in an earlier post on this thread.

Was injured in '97, came back to play in 2000.  Was using a Bridgestone, 10 degree driver/44.5 inches, and took 2 months to relearn
to launch the ball just over 11 degrees (instead of 9.5 with way more spin).
The fitting ideals had changed to a completely different optimum while I was hurt.  In my first session, I picked up nearly 10 yards,
simply by changing to more loft and dropping my spin rates.  The flight was 100% different than what I played.
I was using the highest spin ball available (Bridgestone), changed my swing a bit to reach a new optimum.
Paul did a lot of the same process, though I believe it was with a Titleist driver and ball.

So, in his experience the "fitting ideals" on tour had changed around 2000.  Perhaps the confluence of that change in fitting ideals and the introduction of the ProV's created the perfect storm of distance gain.  I would guess that it was also likely Titleist, amongst others, were working quite hard to determine optimal launch conditions while they were playing around with cores materials, layers, covers and dimple patterns and other physical aspects of the ball. 

I think the golden age of optimization really took flight with the launching (no pun intended) in 2003 of Trackman. 

[Sean_A]

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.

Si. Most will say length causes course alterations when in fact it is clubs and owners which cause course changes. It is an obvious, but very important distinction I think directly related to the concept of "championship course" and advertizing based on touring pro skills rather than 18 hqandicapper skills.  A ton of places, for whatever reason, don't want to be "left behind" in the public relations game.  Even on this site, where does the conversation always end up - talking about pros and what they do.  I guess that has always been the case.  Only now, the gap between good, excellent and world class golfers has grown dramatically.  I spose back in the day club members kidded themesleves when they thought 6000 yard courses were good tests for the elite player.  I think it was vanity more than anything else, but that same sentiment among club members exists today; they want to believe their course is tough.  So the seemingly obvious answer to is to increase length to remain relavant.  I think the more obvious question is remain relavant for who?  Are club members paying $500 a month so they can host a tour event? 

Ciao

[Jim Nugent]

Re the LPGA, Titleist currently lists 83 players using their balls.  All but one of them use ProV1 or ProV1x.  The outlier uses the NXT Tour. 

Comparing 1993 to 2013, the longest driver on the LPGA tour gained more yards than the longest on the PGA Tour. 

[JESII]

Jim,

What does that tell you?

[JESII]

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

Not at all.  This has been my point from the beginning.  That ball only benefited those with extremely high swing speeds who were looking to "optimize" by decreasing spin.

David,

Look through the names in your chart...tell me how many of those guys are known to have, in your words, "extremely high swing speeds". I read through the first half or more of the list and saw exactly Zero known "extremely high swing speed" guys. I did notice Ernie Els near the end of the list and he may or may not be.

I think what you'll find, and Doug Siebert's story reinforces, is that the high spin guys are more apt to use the X. Not the high speed guys.

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.

As for my overall position that you continue to guess at; I've never disagreed that if you went back to your cornfield and hit old balatas with old persimmon and compared to new titanium drivers and new balls the new stuff would go further for just about everyone. This has happened at ever 20 year interval in the history of golf.

Did a leap in optimization occur overnight? No, but it also didn't coincide perfectly with the release of the ProV1 or the X. Before the ProV1 was introduced Shigeki Maruyama was working with engineers in Japan to figure out how to launch a drive at a 45 degree angle with zero back spin. Where do you think they were going with that effort?

I'm not denying anything, just not interested in hearing the whining about other people (PGA Tour players) making certain courses look too easy!

What activity doesn't look too easy when played by the very best players in the world?

[Jim Nugent]

Jim,

What does that tell you?

It suggests not only real high swing speeds gained from the technology revolution. 

btw, the median among LPGA players increased nearly 20 yards that same time, while the median among PGA players increased nearly 30 yards. 

Another interesting fact: Until 2003, only one player (Daly) averaged over 300 yards.  In 2003, nine players did.  In 2004, fifteen players did.  In 2005, twenty six players averaged over 300. 

After that the number steadily fell, all the way to twelve players in 2010.  The next two years it rose to 21 and last year it fell back again to 13. 

During all that time, only one player averaged over 320: Hank Kuehne in 2003, who never made much of an impact on tour.  Most other years the leader was in the 315 neighborhood. 

So after a fairly quick, big increase in both distance and the number of players driving over 300 yards, the numbers settled down, and actually fell a number of years. 

I'm real interested to see when the next generation of long-ball hitters comes to the fore, adding another 20 yards to today's averages.  Is that day coming soon? 

[Bryan Izatt]

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 can certainly see a new wave of long ball hitters coming who have been brought up and trained on a +5* Angle of Attack swing.  The current PGA Tour average is -1*.  Lots of room for improvement there.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jim,

I don't think the driving stats reflect whether the golfer used their driver, 3-metal, utility metal or iron on the hole/s selected for measuring.

If so, that might account for the fluctuations

[Josh Bills]

Is it possible that the drives have leveled off because they are no longer hitting driver because the course won't allow for it to be hit.  Thus the holes they are measuring drive distance on may not be an accurate indication of the length of drive, but of a 3 wood or iron?  Is that a reflection of courses tightening up versus just adding length?  While I don't have answers to these questions, seems like important variables to consider if an argument is presented things have leveled off as to distance.  I know by switching to the new Titleist D3 driver last year and continuing to use the ProV1x, I gained significant yards, probably close 15 to 20 per drive. 

My guess is the next wave of big hitters will probably coincide with a new technology, not younger blood. 

While I don't see rollback as a real option for the everyday golfer, and you can include me as someone who would rather hit it further than shorter, but for the professionals seems like equipment and product rollback are the only real solution to preserve courses as originally intended from their amazing capabilities.  As an example, baseball comes to mind.  They still use wooden bats, versus the college and all other levels permitting aluminum or whatever other metal is permitted.  The fields are basically the same size from the days of old.  That hasn't detracted from the game of baseball because they still use wooden bats.  Just my thoughts on all this from a guy who appreciates the technology advances but doesn't want to see great courses become obsolete.   Though many who make their living modifying courses may disagree with my assessment. 

[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. 

[Garland Bayley]

To expand on this a bit, one of the arguments that has been made against rolling back the ball is that the distance offered by the Pro V1/V1x has always been available to golfers in the form of balls such as the Top Flite.  My experience in the 80s/90s comparing distance between a Titleist Balata or Professional and a Top Flite doesn't bear that out, but let's say that's the case.

My experience from the 70s bears that out. The balata balls ballooned and fell short with little roll, whereas the TopFlites were the energizer bunny so to speak, they kept going, and going, and going.

We don't need to, for example, lop 10% off the distance for all balls, penalizing 300 yard hitters by 30 yards and 180 yard hitters by 18 yards.  We don't need to make low spin balls like the 1980s Top Flite illegal.  We don't even need to make balls that act like a Pro V1x when hit by a driver illegal.  All we have to do is make balls that act like a Pro V1x off a driver illegal if they also act like a Pro V1x does when struck by a quarter wedge.  If it acts like a 1980 era Top Flite when struck by a quarter wedge, then it doesn't matter what it does when struck with a 120 mph driver.  Add a one ball rule for amateurs and you're done.

With even a simple change like this, things would sort themselves out pretty well.  I'm not saying we couldn't do better with a more fine tuned and well-researched rule change, but this simple change would go a long way toward rolling things back to the 1980s/1990s.  Newer drivers have better COR, and I'm sure that accounts for something too, so it wouldn't be a complete rollback, but like I said this is suggested only as a way to get us a good portion of the way there, not turn back the clock completely.

Better players would deliberately give up that yardage they gained in 2001-2003, because they need/want that control around the greens.  The 20 handicap who hits the ball a mile and has no clue where it is going will still play the Top Flite type ball like he always has because his only claim to fame is hitting it a long way.  But no one is going to build 7700 yard courses for that guy, he's irrelevant in that respect.

Way to co-opt my position! Except of course, you write it out much better than I do.

[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

[Garland Bayley]

Most, if not all young kids that make the PGA Tour have to tone down their driving to survive. If you can check on driving distance from their jr. tour days, and compare it to their driving distance on the PGA Tour, you will probably find that to be true.

My source is an interview with Camilio Villegas, who said he and other colleagues of his that went from the Nationwide Tour to the PGA Tour all had to tone down the driving considerably. The Nationwide Tour used to play Shadow Hills in Oregon. Having played there, I can say there is nothing there to keep you from blasting away with all your might.

[DMoriarty]

Jim Sullivan,  

With all respect, Jim, if you don't think there is a positive correlation between swing speed and spin then you are not arguing against me, but against the laws of physics as we know them.  And maybe next time you are looking at a sample of players trying to find those with higher swing speeds, you might want to start with those who hit the ball farther.  

Or better yet, perhaps rather than you eyeballing lists and making pronouncements about the way things are, you should try to look at this a bit more scientifically.  

Your hypothesis:  "[T]he high spin guys are more apt to use the X. Not the high speed guys."  So now all you need to do is to test your hypothesis. Eyeballing my list (from the wrong end) doesn't cut it, and for that matter focusing on the best of the best won't cut it either. Find me a mass of golfers with 80 mph swing speeds who would benefit from hitting the ProV1x and you'll be onto something.

One more thing, Jim.  As you might have noticed, I do try to answer your questions the best I can when I can. Why won't you do me the courtesy of trying to answer even my simplest questions?