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

[JESII]

Pat,

My point all along is that less than 1% of players make any course remotely obsolete so stop spending money you don't have to cater to people who don't care.

[JESII]

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.  

My bet is that it's less rare than the number of people making golf courses obsolete.

[JMEvensky]

Pat,

My point all along is that less than 1% of players make any course remotely obsolete so stop spending money you don't have to cater to people who don't care.

You're right but you're wrong.

In my,albeit limited,experience,it's not just the good players who want the golf course lengthened--or made more difficult by other means.It becomes a situation where no member dares to question the idea that a harder/longer golf course is a better golf course.

The idea that lengthening a golf course happens solely because good players make the decision just isn't wholly accurate.They're usually the ones driving the bus,but nobody in the back is screaming slow down.

[JESII]

I'm saying the very best players in the world (the ones making any course obsolete) don't care.

 The various members of the club making the decision hold the blame when this debate turns to cost and time as negatives due to increased distance.

[JMEvensky]

I'm saying the very best players in the world (the ones making any course obsolete) don't care.

 The various members of the club making the decision hold the blame when this debate turns to cost and time as negatives due to increased distance.

I agree with your first comment--PGAT players don't care.Most would show up anywhere,irrespective of yardage.

However,they probably care to the extent their sponsors tell them they should care about how great the new equipment is that they're playing.And that's the main force causing all this mishagoss,IMO.

And I agree with your second--club members frequently make questionable decisions.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

My point all along is that less than 1% of players make any course remotely obsolete so stop spending money you don't have to cater to people who don't care.

But Jim, that's not true.

High school kids are hitting it further than Nicklaus in his prime.

60 year old guys who are 10 handicaps are hitting it 300.

It's systemic, yet you cling to confining the context to an extremely narrow sub-set, the PGA Tour Pros.

Why do you think local clubs have been lengthening their courses for the past 3 decades ?  ?  ?

[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.  

My bet is that it's less rare than the number of people making golf courses obsolete.

I'd take your bet, but then we'd argue for weeks about how far one has to hit it make a course "obsolete" and what score they'd have to shoot in the process.

Seriously, do you really believe that there are a bunch of golfers out there with slow swing speeds (you said 80 mph) who would benefit distance-wise from a ball like the ProV1x?    How would they generate enough spin (without sacrificing ball speed) to hit at the optimal spin numbers?

I took a look at the 2006 USGA study and saw a few interesting numbers regarding ball speed and speed.   They performed a mechanical driver test at different swing speeds and charted ball speed, launch angle, and spin rate, for five different tour balls at 90, 100, 110, 120, and 125 mph. One of the balls (Ball A) hit at a 125 mph swing produced a the spin rate of 2536,which looks to be pretty close to "optimal."   At a 90 mph swing, the spin rate was only 1932.   That is a big drop, and well short of the "optimal" spin rate on Bryan's chart (2630 to 3690) for a 90 mph swing.  (And if it was at 80 or 70 mph swing, the spin rate would necessarily drop even further.) Arguably, the slow swinging player could try to get his spin rate up to the ideal by increasing loft or hitting down on the ball, but that would mean an even less efficient transfer of energy and his ball speed would suffer, and thus his distance would suffer.    

So I am at a loss as to how your theory works.   Explain to me how a golfer with a 70 or 80 mph swing would ever benefit from a ball like that?  How would they generate the "optimal" spin without losing ball speed?

[Doug Siebert]

Pat,

My point all along is that less than 1% of players make any course remotely obsolete so stop spending money you don't have to cater to people who don't care.

The fact is that existing courses are being lengthened and are being designed longer.  Whether you think it matters for less than 1% of players or even if it only mattered for Dustin Johnson is utterly irrelevant in the face of the fact that it is happening.  Telling people to stop will not stop it, any more than telling the sun to stop rising in the east will make it so.

Golf is being made more expensive at a rate much faster than inflation between the changes being made to lengthen older courses, and the increased land and construction costs for new courses, and the increased maintenance for both, simply because too many people like you think if you stick your fingers in your ears and yell "la la la!" loud enough the problem will go away.

Some of us have been saying this was a problem for a decade now, and I'm astounded there are still people who deny it, or claim that it is less than 1% of golfers who are affected.  Everyone is affected, even women who can only manage a 40 mph swing speed, because they pay the same green fees as a guy bombing it 320 from the back tees.  Some part of the blame for slower play, which also affects everyone, can be placed on longer courses since it only takes a handful of people playing more slowly to slow things down for the groups behind them for hours to come.

[Bryan Izatt]

Doug,

Let's say there are 29M golfers in the US. 

And, that there are 290 (for easy math) male tour pro's (0.001% of golfers) who are regularly and visibly seen to hit the ball a long way and consequently overwhelm courses that are less than say 7200 yards.

And, that there are another 290,000 (1%) of amateur and pro golfers who hit the ball a long way, but are not so visible to the masses.

And, that we have 40 or 50 golf courses that host tour events that need to be lengthened and strengthened in the view of their owners/membership to provide a challenge for tour events. 

And, that we have another 200 or 2000 or whatever number of courses, that will never host a tour event, but were built long or have been lengthened and strengthened to keep up with the tour hosting courses or to protect them from the 1% or even 10% of prodigious hitters that are arriving on the scene.

Now, somehow we're going to regulate the ball and other I&B so that the .001% or the 1% can't overwhelm any sub 7,000 yard (or whatever figure you want) course.   

And, hope that the long courses and lengthened and strengthened courses are going to roll back their long tees. 

And, the billion dollar golf industry is going to turn over a complete new set of balls and equipment that is going to meet the new regulation.

And, the regulating agencies are going to expect that the 99% of golfers are going to suck it up and spend the bucks to adopt the new technology.

All in the name of saving some small number of classic courses from making the stupid decision to deface themselves in pursuit of keeping their architecture challenging for the .001% or the 1%.

And, a larger number of courses from stupidly trying to keep up with the "championship" course Jones.

And, discourage developers from developing long and challenging new courses for God knows what reason.

I don't get it.  Turn the I&B world over to persuade golf course owners/operators/clubs to not make stupid decisions in pursuit of challenging the .001% or the 1%. 

Wouldn't it be easier and cheaper just to create super long challenging courses (TPC's for example) that can challenge the 1%.  Bifurcation of membership based on length.  Or, a tournament ball for elite events.  Both would be a lot less disruptive of the golf world than trying to regulate the ball and I&B.



 

[Bryan Izatt]

David,

Re slow swing speeds, I guess I'd have to say that 80 mph seems really slow to me.  According to the Trackman Combine numbers, 15 handicap women on average hit the ball at 79 mph.  That translates to a carry of about 150 yards.  I've played a long time and with a lot of people and I honestly don't recall any/many who could only drive the ball 150 yards.  If your premise is that people at and below that swing speed didn't see an advantage from the ProV1x, I'd have to agree.  I think any loss they would have experienced would have been negligible too. 

Re the effect of spin on distance, I'd agree that the breakeven point might be around 105 mph, based on numbers I've seen around.  However, the effect of spin alone (increasing or decreasing) on distance appears to be grossly over-rated.  I am now persuaded that my pursuit of lower spin rates (say around 2500) is misguided.

Try finding the Flightscope Trajectory Optimizer online.  They have a neat little tool that uses an algorithm they've developed based on data from their monitors to predict flight trajectories and carry and total distances based on inputting ball speed, launch angle and spin rate.  You an play with side spin and even the altitude of the location you play. 

Vis-a-vis the Trackman optimal conditions, as I understand it you need to try to develop a swing with a positive Angle of Attack and know what your swing speed is and then try to configure a driver that will combine with your swing to achieve the optimal launch angle in the table.

I played around with the Flightscope Trajectory Optimizer and it agrees that the Trackman table is optimal (for what they call hard ground for total distance).  I put in the Trackman average numbers for the LPGA Tour players, and not surprisingly they turned out to be optimalfor their swing speed.  The same held true for the PGA Tour men. 

If you lower the spin numbers for either men or women pros. the carry distance goes down, but the total distance remains the same.  What you lose in carry you gain in roll (at least on hard ground).  If you raise the spin rate, it makes no difference to the men, and adds only a yard or two of carry for the women.  At some point it tails off for each as the spin rate rises.  What is surprising is that the distance changes over a broad range of spin rates is very small, maybe +/- 2 yards within +/- 400 rpms.   At the 79 mph 15 hcp women specs, altering the spin makes virtually no difference.

It leaves me wondering again, what was different about the ProV and their ilk compared to their predecessors.  Was raising the COR of the ball to the Rockflite level enough to create the extra distance/  Or did dimples and reduced drag from the skin contribute?  Or, something else?

Clearly, based on the Flightscope Trajectory Optimizer numbers, regulating a minimum spin rate will prove futile.  Even at 5,000 rpm, you'd only lose 6 or 7 yards.  It would be more effective to regulate a maximum spin off the driver of say 1600 rpm.  It'd be more like a knuckle ball and cut the yardage by 1o yards or so.

Perhaps better and easier areas to regulate would be the size of the ball (larger) or weight (lighter) or the COR of the ball (lower).  Spin is a loser proposition for regulation.

Still no further insight into the relative slopes of the "curves", although I'm still skeptical that they are significantly different. 

 

[JESII]

Pat,

My point all along is that less than 1% of players make any course remotely obsolete so stop spending money you don't have to cater to people who don't care.

The fact is that existing courses are being lengthened and are being designed longer.  Whether you think it matters for less than 1% of players or even if it only mattered for Dustin Johnson is utterly irrelevant in the face of the fact that it is happening.  Telling people to stop will not stop it, any more than telling the sun to stop rising in the east will make it so.

Golf is being made more expensive at a rate much faster than inflation between the changes being made to lengthen older courses, and the increased land and construction costs for new courses, and the increased maintenance for both, simply because too many people like you think if you stick your fingers in your ears and yell "la la la!" loud enough the problem will go away.

Some of us have been saying this was a problem for a decade now, and I'm astounded there are still people who deny it, or claim that it is less than 1% of golfers who are affected.  Everyone is affected, even women who can only manage a 40 mph swing speed, because they pay the same green fees as a guy bombing it 320 from the back tees.  Some part of the blame for slower play, which also affects everyone, can be placed on longer courses since it only takes a handful of people playing more slowly to slow things down for the groups behind them for hours to come.

Doug,

If you're comfortable turning the game on its head for <1% of its participants, fine. Just don't think I'm the one ignoring the bigger picture. The game can regain its intimacy and charm if operators would simply focus on what makes their game unique to begin with and develop their facilities around those factors.

[JESII]

Explain to me how a golfer with a 70 or 80 mph swing would ever benefit from a ball like that?  How would they generate the "optimal" spin without losing ball speed?

No David, I'm not interested in that conversation.

I'm interested in your assertion that only the elite of the elite benefit from the ProV1x so it should be banned.

[DMoriarty]

Bryan,  Regarding your post to Doug, I think you are drastically underestimating the number of golfers who hit the ball "a long way" and also drastically overestimating the cost of reining in the ball.  

As for the former, I think Doug's point was simply that the number or percentage doesn't matter as much as the fact that the courses are being changed, and newer courses are being built longer.  In this regard I keep thinking of a comment made by Tom Doak on a thread about Streamsong, in response to an observation (might have been yours) about how one of the courses seemed to be lacking in shorter par fours.   If I recall correctly, the response was that the owner wanted the courses to be of a certain length, and that (in part) was responsible for all the longer par fours.   If our best architects are stretching out their new courses to meet some silly distance goal which (if I recall correctly) was way too long for the vast majority of golfers, then it seems it would be hard to deny the fact that the equipment  is adversely impacting the architecture.

As to the latter, I think most if not all your potential costs are exaggerated.  Practically speaking, the golf balls are perishable. Golfers replenish periodically.   I don't think the cost of changing over would be too great if, for example, the regulation first applied to competition play (including professional play) and then over time was applied to recreational play.  If done over time the cost of buying new balls would be negligible, because golfers were going to have to buy new balls anyway.  You might have a better argument with the rest of the equipment, which is one reason I focus on the ball.  And I don't accept your assumptions about how golf developers wouldn't be able to still build challenging courses.

As for feelings that 80 mph is somehow too slow to matter, I disagree but I don't think it worth arguing over.  I think I indicated that I thought 85 mph (not 80) was probably about average, but that is just a ballpark guess on my part.  Could be higher.  Could be lower.  I don't think it matters much either way.  I don't put much weight in trackman stats because it is a self-selecting sample of golfers who are really into that sort of thing, so I have my doubts that there is anything "average" about their numbers.  I have no idea of the algorithms behind that optimizer.  As for your ideas on optimal angle of attack, keep in mind that changing loft and swing path potentially impacts the ball speed.  

I know some have, but I haven't really focused my suggestions for regulation on spin rate. If you recall, my focus has been on pushing back the distance at the top end while at the same time regulating the slope of the aggregate swing speed curve (that you don't like to call a curve).  In other words, focus not just on total distance, but also on the distance gained per incremental increase in mph.
____________________________________________________________________________

No David, I'm not interested in that conversation.

I'm interested in your assertion that only the elite of the elite benefit from the ProV1x so it should be banned.

Again, Jim I think you may be twisting my position.  I never said the ProV1x "should be banned" because only the elite of the elite benefit.  I have repeatedly written that I think that banning the ProV1x would not adversely impact average players.  This was in response to your claim that all golfers would necessarily suffer from a rollback.  I understand the point you are making about spin control and tour players, but I am concerned with a much larger spectrum of swing speeds than just the tour players, and while you make a good point about golfers at 115 mph vs. 120 mph, your point does not hold at 120 mph vs. 85 mph.

As an aside, I looked at the Titleist website and it looks like a large majority of touring pros are now playing the ProV1x.  My guess (and it is just that) is that with all the different iterations of these balls since they were introduced, the difference between the ProV1 and the ProV1x has narrowed substantially.   (Either that  or the makeup of their stable has changed in favor of those whose swings are a better fit for the ProV1x.

[Garland Bayley]

...
And, that there are another 290,000 (1%) of amateur and pro golfers who hit the ball a long way, but are not so visible to the masses.
...

Thought I would point out your tyop. Should be 2,900,000 (10%)

[DMoriarty]

Here is an article from the R&A published last May, regarding distance off the tee. http://www.randa.org/en/RandA/News/News/2013/May/Drive-Distance.aspx According to the article, they have been keeping track of driving distance of various levels of golfers since 1996.  Some points from the article.
- Average driving distance in 1996 was 200 yards.
- Average driving distance in 2012 was 208 yards.  
- From 1996 through 2012, the average golfer gained 3 yards off the tee with a driver.

Golfers used to hit many more balls with three wood off tee, so 8 yard gain was mostly attributable to the fact that most golfers started hitting drivers.  The three yard gain represents the driver to driver comparison for the two years.  

Bryan, wouldn't the 208 yard drive extrapolate to about an 85 mph swing speed, even leaving plenty of room for mishits?  

[Doug Siebert]

Re slow swing speeds, I guess I'd have to say that 80 mph seems really slow to me.  According to the Trackman Combine numbers, 15 handicap women on average hit the ball at 79 mph.  That translates to a carry of about 150 yards.  I've played a long time and with a lot of people and I honestly don't recall any/many who could only drive the ball 150 yards.  If your premise is that people at and below that swing speed didn't see an advantage from the ProV1x, I'd have to agree.  I think any loss they would have experienced would have been negligible too.  

80 mph = 150 yards?  That seems impossible to me, since I believe 120 mph around the point where 300 yard carries start to occur.  We would definitely be seeing supralinear increases in distance per mph increase if both numbers are accurate.  Since other posters have claimed this is not the case, then either they're wrong or you're wrong.  I'd bet 80 mph is closer to a 200 yard carry.

Anyone have any monitor results with real world golfers that show a wider range than the type 80-120 mph, down to say 50 mph?

[Doug Siebert]

If you're comfortable turning the game on its head for <1% of its participants, fine. Just don't think I'm the one ignoring the bigger picture. The game can regain its intimacy and charm if operators would simply focus on what makes their game unique to begin with and develop their facilities around those factors.

I'm trying to be a realist here, and you're once again including a huge IF and ignoring how big it is.  IF operators would simply focus....  How is that different than wishing operators would realize that overwatering to create a lush green course is not the best way for the game, or that spending a lot of money to add fountains and flowerbeds isn't a good idea etc.

In an ideal world, only a handful of courses would be lengthened - only those that host a yearly tour event.  But we live in the real world, and that's not happening.  I don't understand why you think reigning in the ball would "turn the game on its head".  Was it on its head in the 50s/60s/70s/80s?  Has the new ball and driver made the game so much better that you think it will be ruined by making any changes?  What is the terrible outcome you are so afraid of?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Bryan, Doug, Jim & David,

I think the dilemma, which is being ignored, is that an architect has to design the course as his client dictates, and usually, that design is predicated on relevance.  In other words, design a course that's 6,400 yards from the tips, and it will lose a bit of it's relevance in terms of it's perception amongst it's peers.   

While I know that Tom Doak and others advocate shorter courses, they're clearly swimming against the current/trend, and that's a risky proposition if you're the developer.  Exhibit "A" might be Sebonack and the developers desires/objectives.

[Bryan Izatt]

Bryan,  Regarding your post to Doug, I think you are drastically underestimating the number of golfers who hit the ball "a long way" and also drastically overestimating the cost of reining in the ball.

I based my guesstimates on my experience playing with a lot people. At my club there are only two people who legitimately hit the ball 300 yards.  There are more who think they do, but really don't.  Many if not most golfers overestimate their distance abilities.  You may have had different experiences and that is fine.

I wasn't thinking in terms of "cost", but rather impact.  You're going to impact 99% of all the golfers.  You are also going to impact all the equipment manufacturers.  I understand that you don't think that impact is significant.  But impact the many for the benefit of the few .......[/color]
  

As for the former, I think Doug's point was simply that the number or percentage doesn't matter as much as the fact that the courses are being changed, and newer courses are being built longer.  In this regard I keep thinking of a comment made by Tom Doak on a thread about Streamsong, in response to an observation (might have been yours) about how one of the courses seemed to be lacking in shorter par fours.   If I recall correctly, the response was that the owner wanted the courses to be of a certain length, and that (in part) was responsible for all the longer par fours.   If our best architects are stretching out their new courses to meet some silly distance goal which (if I recall correctly) was way too long for the vast majority of golfers, then it seems it would be hard to deny the fact that the equipment  is adversely impacting the architecture.


I remember the TD thing, but not sure you've got it right.  There are certainly short par 4's on both courses.  Regardless, yes, the owner wanted a "championship" length.  I don't think you can lay that at the architect's door.  It's the owners who are demanding this.  The architects deliver on the brief in order to get paid.

....................................

Agreed to disagree on what slow swing speed is.

I know some have, but I haven't really focused my suggestions for regulation on spin rate. If you recall, my focus has been on pushing back the distance at the top end while at the same time regulating the slope of the aggregate swing speed curve (that you don't like to call a curve).  In other words, focus not just on total distance, but also on the distance gained per incremental increase in mph.

Yes, I understand your position.  What you are suggesting is "compression" of driving distances.  Who would know what the "right" level of compression is?  Looks like a hornet's nest to me.  I'm still interested in knowing what the slope was with the Balata ball.  I could be convinced that there was a difference in slope introduced by the modern ball, but only if there was some reliable data to support the claim


.............................

[Patrick_Mucci]

Bryan,

Years ago, two British scientists wrote a book about ball compression and they discovered, at the time, that the highest compression ball produced the best results for all golfers.

Now, that was back before the one piece ball.

I have the book in a pile in a back closet.
This weekend I'll retrieve it.

[Bryan Izatt]

Here is an article from the R&A published last May, regarding distance off the tee. http://www.randa.org/en/RandA/News/News/2013/May/Drive-Distance.aspx According to the article, they have been keeping track of driving distance of various levels of golfers since 1996.  Some points from the article.
- Average driving distance in 1996 was 200 yards.
- Average driving distance in 2012 was 208 yards.  
- From 1996 through 2012, the average golfer gained 3 yards off the tee with a driver.

Golfers used to hit many more balls with three wood off tee, so 8 yard gain was mostly attributable to the fact that most golfers started hitting drivers.  The three yard gain represents the driver to driver comparison for the two years.  

Bryan, wouldn't the 208 yard drive extrapolate to about an 85 mph swing speed, even leaving plenty of room for mishits?  

Interesting article, the principle theme of which is:

It seems to be a commonly held belief that the longest hitters get some additional benefit from modern balls. In fact, hitting golf balls obeys the law of diminishing returns, namely for each mile per hour of added swing speed a slower golfer gains more distance than a high swing speed golfer, like Bubba Watson. The longest hitters have to combat additional losses due to extra compression and also overcome greater drag forces; as well as needing to keep the ball closer to the target line.

People often say that non-elite golfers do not benefit from innovations in technology, this is not true. They do benefit, but perhaps not as often! Due to higher levels of variation it is harder for them to realise the benefits, but they are there for the taking.

To put those numbers in context, we'd have to know how much the swing speeds changed between 1996 and 2012 and in what ways did the launch parameters and smash factors change.  In my opinion, between 1996 and 2012 the average swing pseed on the PGA Tour probably increased and more optimal launch conditions are used now compared to 16 years ago.  Lie, damn lies and statistics ............


The percentage use of 3 woods off the tee in their data set is astonishing to me.  In my 55 years of playing here at all levels, I don't recall very many people routinely using 3 woods.  Even back in the days when we all played persimmon or laminate heads.


According to the Trackman chart 208 yards of carry would be about 90 mph.

[Bryan Izatt]

Re slow swing speeds, I guess I'd have to say that 80 mph seems really slow to me.  According to the Trackman Combine numbers, 15 handicap women on average hit the ball at 79 mph.  That translates to a carry of about 150 yards.  I've played a long time and with a lot of people and I honestly don't recall any/many who could only drive the ball 150 yards.  If your premise is that people at and below that swing speed didn't see an advantage from the ProV1x, I'd have to agree.  I think any loss they would have experienced would have been negligible too.  

80 mph = 150 yards?  That seems impossible to me, since I believe 120 mph around the point where 300 yard carries start to occur.  We would definitely be seeing supralinear increases in distance per mph increase if both numbers are accurate.  Since other posters have claimed this is not the case, then either they're wrong or you're wrong.  I'd bet 80 mph is closer to a 200 yard carry.

Anyone have any monitor results with real world golfers that show a wider range than the type 80-120 mph, down to say 50 mph?

Don't shoot the messenger.  The 79 mph = 149 yards represents Trackman's average results from their Trackman Combine experience with women amateur golfers who average 15 handicap.  The PGa male Tour numbers are 113 mph = 273 yards.  The yards are carry yards not total yards.  The general rule of thumb based on robot data is that you get 3.2 yards gain per extra mph.  These numbers could be read to suggest that the PGAT guys get a bit of an extra boost.  I doubt that is a correct interpretation.    More likely the male pros are more optimized and have a more efficient strike than do the 15 hcp amateur women.  If you could parse the raw data to only include those 15 hcp female shots that were efficient strikes with optimal launch conditions it may well be that their 79 mph swings would produce a carry of more like 165 yards.  That would be in line with the PGAT men and the 3.2 yard per mph constant.  Only a guess on my part.  Feel free to disagree.

[DMoriarty]

I agree that people overestimate their distance abilities.  I don't know what the correct number is, or how to draw the line.

Regarding "cost" vs. "impact," I was trying to use cost broadly but "impact" is a better term.   I think you are overstating the impact, by a long ways.  I don't think you'd necessary impact 99% of golfers, except that at some point when they ran out of balls their next balls would be conforming.  For many golfers the balls would probably perform the same.  And big hitters would still hit it well by everyone else.

I don't get your "impact the many for the benefit of the few . . . " argument.   Seems the opposite to me. Golf is a relative game. What is as at stake here is the architecture, and I think we all benefit if traditional proportions between long and short are restored and if more of us can fit on the same courses.

As for the Streamsong thing, I wasn't sure.  I tried to find the thread but couldn't, probably because I had it wrong.  I don't lay the decision at the architects door.  As Patrick said, it is probably the developer.  Personally I don't care who it is. My point is that it is a reality that even the best golf architecture is being defined by these ridiculous distance demands, and if these architects aren't immune, then no one is. I just think it naive to pretend that when these guys see the likes of Bubba Watson hitting drive after drive over 340 yards, that they are going to build reasonable length golf courses. I don't blame them.  Historically the world's best courses have been "Championship" tests, and so why would they want to build anything but?  Sure it is ego and sure they don't need the distance, but they think they do. And perception becomes reality.

As for my suggestion,  I guess "compression" a pretty good word for it, but compression more from the top. Amateur golfers haven't reaped the gains, so pushing back on them wouldn't make much sense.   As far as the correct level of compression, it is debatable, but fortunately the game has a long history so I think we could figure out what worked well.

[Bryan Izatt]

Bryan,

Years ago, two British scientists wrote a book about ball compression and they discovered, at the time, that the highest compression ball produced the best results for all golfers.

Now, that was back before the one piece ball.

I have the book in a pile in a back closet.
This weekend I'll retrieve it.

Years ago, scientists knew exponentially less about golf balls, their flight and and the nature of the golf ball / driver collision than scientists do now.  I'd say that that is true even as of 20 years ago.  It was only a century ago that it was "discovered" that dimples were a better idea than smooth balls and that turbulent flow around the ball was better than laminar flow at reducing drag on the ball.

[DMoriarty]

Bryan, Regarding the R&A article, sure average golfers have benefited.  A whopping 3 yards of benefit with their drivers.  And perhaps a bit more control with them, which allows average golfers to use them more off the tee.  

To put those numbers in context, we'd have to know how much the swing speeds changed between 1996 and 2012 and in what ways did the launch parameters and smash factors change.  In my opinion, between 1996 and 2012 the average swing pseed on the PGA Tour probably increased and more optimal launch conditions are used now compared to 16 years ago.  Lie, damn lies and statistics ............

With all respect, I don't think we need any of this to put these numbers in context.  With all the technological advances of the past 15 years, average golfers gain 3 yards with their drivers from 1996 to 2012.   You don't seriously think that this is true of the pgatour pros do you? And all these things you talk about here are related to technological advances in the equipment and its optimal use. Advances which benefit the top golfer to a much greater degree than the average golfer.  

According to the Trackman chart 208 yards of carry would be about 90 mph.

The article didn't say anything about carry.  The article is talking about driving distance.  If anything 85 mph might be too high for an average drive of 208.