[Doug Siebert]

I just reviewed my Common Sense Clubfitting by Tom Wishon. He says spin rate is a minor factor in the distance a ball goes off the driver. So, I may be the one that is illogical and unmathematical.    

He says it has been over-emphasized in clubfitting, with a range of up to 1000 rpm making little or no difference.

Well, the numbers do show a reasonably sized range where it only the difference of a handful of yards.  But there seem to be some pretty steep slopes on either side that he overlooks with this simplification.  Sure, if you're comfortably within that range on a consistent swing to swing basis you don't need to worry about it.  What's the point of optimizing for three more yards unless you're a tour pro?  But if you're too low or too high for your swing speed and launch angle, you need to bring yourself within the acceptable range.  That used to be difficult if not impossible.  Now choosing the right ball and right club gets you most of the way there, no skill required.

[Jim Sherma]

http://thesandtrap.com/b/swing_thoughts/one_ball_to_rule_them_all

Found this while poking around. Read and discuss.

[Garland Bayley]

I have no problem with a single ball for all such as the one they used.

[Doug Siebert]

So his argument was that because some shorter hitters gained distance while longer hitters lost distance that this OGA ball was a bad idea?  I don't see a problem with that - it would restore some of the balance they game had before.  It isn't as though length wouldn't still be an advantage, it would just be an advantage more comparable to that of the 80s rather than today.

His other argument that it "doesn't matter" because longer drives don't help much is even more stupid.  If long drives don't help, then by extension, shorter drives don't hurt.  So what's the problem?

[DMoriarty]

A number of poster (in this thread and past threads) have argued that the old hard balls like the Top Flite and the Pinnacle went just as far as balls like the ProV1x.  For example, a few pages ago Jim argued that the old rock hard balls traveled "very similar" distances to the ProV1x.

The patent application on the last page indicates that in their test, at 109 mph swing speed, the old Top Flite II traveled only 273 yards, which was only 7 yards longer than the Titleist Balata, and the Titleist DT 100 traveled only 2 yards longer than the balata.  

So are these numbers wrong or misleading?  Or are we misremembering these old hard balls?  

Jim and Garland, Are you still sticking with your theory that the there has been no distance improvement between the old hard balls and balls like the ProV1x?

FWIW, I don't remember if the Top Flite II was a typical distance ball or not.  The patent application treats it as if it was, but I don't know.  

[JESII]

David,

My contention is that there are several factors involved in optimizing driving distance beyond just the ball. As for that patent application, I'll study it to see if I can comment. Is it just that one page or is there more to the application?

[DMoriarty]

The link to the rest of the application is at the bottom. 

Of course there are several factors in optimizing driving distances beyond just the ball. But in these various experiments that hold swing speed and club face constant, there is only so much wiggle room for increases and decreases.   Do you disagree with that? 

For example, in the patent application, swing speed was 109 mph (160 fps) with a 9 degree metal wood, and the launch angle for the TF II ended up at 13.1 for the TF II, and 12.7 for the Balata.  Without changing the club head speed, do you really think you could tweak the launch conditions such that suddenly the TF II is flying 30 yards farther?   I don't. 

[JESII]

Scratch that...clicked on the link.

I'll read the rest as well, but does it concern you that the Titleist Balata rolls further than all the other balls, and it rolls 21 yards off both driver and 5 iron?

[DMoriarty]

Does it concern me?  Nope.  Twenty one yards on "firm" (or "firm and dry")  ground isn't all that much roll for a driver or a five iron, and is right in line with the other balata balls.   They aren't testing to a green.  And I don't really buy into the theory that the Balatas spun too much of the tee to produce much roll.  

The interesting figure to me is in the standard deviation in the "spin test."  It looks like the Titleist balata covered balls (and a few others) were much more consistent in their spin characteristics.

[Jim Sherma]

Does it concern me?  Nope.  Twenty one yards on "firm" (or "firm and dry")  ground isn't all that much roll for a driver or a five iron, and is right in line with the other balata balls.   They aren't testing to a green.  And I don't really buy into the theory that the Balatas spun too much of the tee to produce much roll.  

The interesting figure to me is in the standard deviation in the "spin test."  It looks like the Titleist balata covered balls (and a few others) were much more consistent in their spin characteristics.

My personal experience was that balatas didn't over-spin under normal, or even relatively high swing speeds, I was measured at 108mph with my old persimmon back in 1992 or so and never felt that I was overspinning the balatas or giving up any distance using them. I did see them overspin and balloon with a few really-really big hitters, one of who was a national long-drive finalist back in that time. Those few were the ones that benefitted most from the Pro-V1 and Pro-V1x types of balls.

[Garland Bayley]

...
The patent application on the last page indicates that in their test, at 109 mph swing speed, the old Top Flite II traveled only 273 yards, which was only 7 yards longer than the Titleist Balata, and the Titleist DT 100 traveled only 2 yards longer than the balata.  

So are these numbers wrong or misleading?  Or are we misremembering these old hard balls?  

Jim and Garland, Are you still sticking with your theory that the there has been no distance improvement between the old hard balls and balls like the ProV1x?

FWIW, I don't remember if the Top Flite II was a typical distance ball or not.  The patent application treats it as if it was, but I don't know.  

I don't think you can make a conclusion on the 273 yards, because you don't know the equipment. The significant differences in ball behavior between the Top Flite and the Balata means they need very much different equipment to optimize.

The most logical conclusion I can come to is that at the time of the establishment of the overall distance standard, the Titleist Balata and the Top Flite were barely within the initial velocity standard. The added distance of the Top Flite motivated the USGA to create an overall distance standard, which Frank Thomas, then head of their equipment group, had them set at the longest ball + 6%. As I said earlier, Frank didn't say in the article I linked, but I suspect that was the Top Flite. The distance improvement of the ProV1x would be limited to that 6% with that equipment. So yes, it is possible that the ProV1x exceeds the Top Flite in distance. Had they understood optimization, and use optimized equipment and swing path to set the original standard off the Top Flite, the original overall distance standard would have been much higher.
When I was 21, I certainly hit the TopFlite farther than the 279 yards the USGA used to create it's standard off of.

I'm pretty sure the TopFlite II was a distance ball. TopFlite had no reason to change its performance until after they invented the modern ball.

[JESII]

David,

Frankly, I can't make much sense of anything they wrote in there but I can tell you I disagree with the below statement. Not from experience, but that seems like a hole in their case for a patent.

I don't think they specified ball speed, and I don't think the ball speeds are all the same. I think those are just the numbers for the calibration ball. I think they only specified swing speed, and only reported distance results.   Likewise I don't think they picked that spin rate.

Picture this.  They go out to their iron byron.  Set it to 160 fps. Tee up a a calibration ball.  Hit it.  Record the resulting ball speed (239) and the resulting spin (3232) for calibration purposes (maybe to make sure machine is still working the same as last time.)  Then do the experiment, only recording distance.  

It is a hard read, but that is the best I can figure it.

Regardless, there's no effort here to optimize for any ball (except potentially the Tour Edition), so for these specific launch conditions the DT was only slightly longer than the balata. Then again, I can't see conditions that generate 21 yards of roll out of a balata and 18.6 out of a DT, can you?

EDIT: Does it comply with anyone's memory that the harder balls would roll less than the softer balls?

[Garland Bayley]

While they put performance data in the patent, is it not extraneous?

They invented a ball made of a specified set of materials, and made with a specified process. That's the invention.
If another manufacturer comes up with another set of materials and another process, and it performs exactly the same, it is a different patentable invention.
Is there a lawyer in the group? Am I correct?

[DMoriarty]

David,

Frankly, I can't make much sense of anything they wrote in there but I can tell you I disagree with the below statement. Not from experience, but that seems like a hole in their case for a patent.

With what exactly do you disagree?  What do you see as a hole in their case for a patent?  So far as I can tell, they are trying to parallel the USGA version of the distance test.  Nine degree driver, 160 fts (109 mph) swing speed.  Record the distances.

Regardless, there's no effort here to optimize for any ball (except potentially the Tour Edition), so for these specific launch conditions the DT was only slightly longer than the balata.

But these launch conditions were pretty standard for a well struck driver for a very good player at the time, weren't they?

Respectfully, I think you are exaggerating just how much difference tweaking the launch conditions will make.  Two key variables in optimization are swing speed and the ball.  Here the swing speed is controlled (109 mph), and the ball is what is being tested.   As for launch angle, it seems to be in the right ballpark (looking at the trackman optimums.)  So just what is it that you think they can fiddle with to significantly change these numbers?

According to this example there was only a 7 yard difference between the Balata and the Top Flite, and I am not going to argue about whether they could squeeze a few yards out of any one or all of these balls.  Do you seriously believe that the test procedure was so flawed that it was understating the distance of the Top Flite by 20 or 30 or 40 yards at 109 mph swing speeds? That seems extremely unlikely to me.

Then again, I can't see conditions that generate 21 yards of roll out of a balata and 18.6 out of a DT, can you?

EDIT: Does it comply with anyone's memory that the harder balls would roll less than the softer balls?

My recollection is that the Balata launched lower than the harder balls.  This test seems to suggest the same.  This also seems to be the experience of the those who have tried side by side comparisons (your corn field tests.)   It makes sense to me that a lower launched ball would have a tendency to run a little further.  

Think of these new balls.  They are low spin but they launch high and a high percentage of their distance is carry.  If you think the older distance balls have similar distance characteristics, why would this be any different then?  

As Jim Sherma suggests, it may be that the trajectory of the balata changed at extremely high swing speeds/ spin rates, but that is a different issue, isn't it?  

________________________________________________

Garland, I am not patent attorney and I won't even begin to try and unwind what is involved in a successful patent application.  

As for your conclusion a few posts ago.  I agree that the various balls were all pressed up against the initial velocity limit.  The 273 in this test seems reasonably close to the 279 Frank Thomas observed.   My point is that the balata wasn't too far behind that.  

If you were hitting it substantially farther than 279 yards back then, my guess is that you were playing on extremely hard fairways or your swing speed exceeded 109 mph, or both.  

[JESII]

David,

If swing speed is one of the "key variables in optimization" you better go tell all the scientists working to figure out how to maximize a players distance with the knowledge that they're swing speed will remain constant, read; not variable.

[Garland Bayley]

...
If you were hitting it substantially farther than 279 yards back then, my guess is that you were playing on extremely hard fairways or your swing speed exceeded 109 mph, or both. 

I am sure my swing speed exceeded 109 mph. I would come off the college basketball, and track seasons, go to work at a sawmill which really built up my forearms, so I was about as fit for golf as I could be during the summers. However, the additional point that I mentioned before is that I hit the ball with a 2 wood, which would be more optimal for a TopFlite than hitting it with a 9 degree driver, and less optimal for a Balata than hitting it with a 9 degree driver.

No hard fairways.

[DMoriarty]

I could do with a bit less snark, Jim.  Especially on matters where you seem to be mistaken.

The "scientists" are well aware that swing speed is variable, which is one reason why they try to fit golfers with different shaft weights and lengths.  Try your driver with a 40 inch, 120 gram shaft if you don't think swing speed is variable.   I don't know if I believe it, but I even read recently that wearing a heavy rolex-type watch could take a couple mphs off of one's swing speed.  And even with the same club, most if not all golfers have a range of swing speeds with the driver.  Most just aren't good enough to produce the same swing speed every time.  And even among the best, some may take a little off (slower) for control, or let it out (faster) when they need a bit more distance or when the circumstances allow. For average golfers, going to a longer, lighter shaft will lead to worse contact which will cost distance, but that is part of the point of optimization. Shorter shaft for a little less swing speed but better contact and therefore more distance.

Now, care to actually address my post 413 and questions?  

[Garland Bayley]

...
According to this example there was only a 7 yard difference between the Balata and the Top Flite, and I am not going to argue about whether they could squeeze a few yards out of any one or all of these balls.  Do you seriously believe that the test procedure was so flawed that it was understating the distance of the Top Flite by 20 or 30 or 40 yards at 109 mph swing speeds? That seems extremely unlikely to me.
...

If you don't limit the swing speed and allow suitable equipment for the TopFlite 20 yards difference between the balls would be easy IMO.

[DMoriarty]

If you don't limit swing speed then what's the point?

I am tired of anecdotes.  I'd love to see some actual evidence that the old hard balls of 20 years ago were just as long as the ProV1x is now.  I don''t believe it.

[Garland Bayley]

If you don't limit swing speed then what's the point?

The USGA had to remove their previous limit on swing speed for the ODS.
The point is let the ball be all it can be.

[JESII]

Not yet David...in your post 413 you began by dodging a statement of mine. Specifically, I said I disagreed with your quoted words below.

I don't think they specified ball speed, and I don't think the ball speeds are all the same. I think those are just the numbers for the calibration ball. I think they only specified swing speed, and only reported distance results.   Likewise I don't think they picked that spin rate.

Picture this.  They go out to their iron byron.  Set it to 160 fps. Tee up a a calibration ball.  Hit it.  Record the resulting ball speed (239) and the resulting spin (3232) for calibration purposes (maybe to make sure machine is still working the same as last time.)  Then do the experiment, only recording distance.  

You responded with "With what exactly do you disagree with?"

You know exactly what I disagree with. I don't accept your 'suspicion' that they used a calibration ball. How do you support it?

The most logical approach for Spalding would be to find a speed/spin/launch combination that places the Tour Edition ahead of the soft and hard balls. I'm guessing this is what they did here.

[Doug Siebert]

I am sure my swing speed exceeded 109 mph. I would come off the college basketball, and track seasons, go to work at a sawmill which really built up my forearms, so I was about as fit for golf as I could be during the summers. However, the additional point that I mentioned before is that I hit the ball with a 2 wood, which would be more optimal for a TopFlite than hitting it with a 9 degree driver, and less optimal for a Balata than hitting it with a 9 degree driver.

Aha, hitting with a more lofted "driver", in the form of a 2W, probably explains why you saw more gain from the hard balls than I did!  You were hitting something around a 13* club, and I was hitting a 7.5* (first metal wood I owned) and 6.5* (second metal wood I owned) which were more "optimized" for me for wound balls and didn't launch high enough to maximize my distance when I happened to play a Top Flite for a few holes.

[Doug Siebert]

If you don't limit swing speed then what's the point?

The USGA had to remove their previous limit on swing speed for the ODS.
The point is let the ball be all it can be.

AFAIK the ODS was based on a 109 mph swing with a certain club.  I believe they later expanded the test to include a 120 mph swing with a certain test club (not sure if it was the same) but instead of 288 (I think?) yards it was 320 (again, I think?) yards.

Either way, the ODS and initial velocity standard don't necessarily capture everything involved in the changes to the ball and club.  If before you had a 320 yard drive with a 120 mph club that carried 280 yards and rolled 40 yards, and after you had a 310 yard carry with a 10 yard roll, the total distance may be the same but the benefit to the player is quite different.  If I'm losing 40 yards of roll, it is a much bigger deal to knock it into the rough than if I only lose 10 yards of roll.  Bomb and gouge...

Then there's the effect of the club.  If the ODS is tested with a club that has launch/spin characteristics that are (roughly) ideal for the ball of the 80s and early 90s, but is decidedly suboptimal for the ball of the 00s, what happens?  That ball from the 00s still fits within the ODS since it doesn't match well with the old club that is being used for the test, but everyone is using the new club and blowing by that ODS standard.

I suppose in hindsight if they'd said the ODS would be tested using the "top 5 most popular drivers of the previous year" that could have helped, but that has its own set of problems - you could have a ball that conforms with the ODS one year, but the next year the same ball doesn't because a newly popular driver that's better optimized for it causes it to be non-conforming!  That's obviously not a desirable outcome.  The ODS was a great idea back in the day when everyone was using a persimmon driver and they were (I think?) pretty much all 11*.  The wider the range the less sense it makes because balls that conform to the ODS using one driver may become non-conforming with a driver that is either better optimized to that ball - or just plain better (i.e. spring effect, longer shaft, lighter shaft)

[DMoriarty]

Jim,  If I knew what you meant I wouldn't have asked.   I really don't think it matters matters much either way, but since you asked . . . The reason why I think they used a calibration ball before the test is because I have read that they calibrated the USGA machine and similar machines before tests. Also, the figures (spin and iv) that Bryan and I were discussing appeared not in the "Results" section, but in the "Launch Conditions - Before Test" section.  I think that viewing these as calibration numbers makes more sense than "control" numbers, as Bryan suggested.  (I don't think one could reasonably control for these things using this type of machine.)  But again, it doesn't really matter to me, nor does it change my view of the results if instead they were controls.  

Why do you think this is so important?  Is this why you think there is "a hole in their case for a patent." Care to explain?

The most logical approach for Spalding would be to find a speed/spin/launch combination that places the Tour Edition ahead of the soft and hard balls. I'm guessing this is what they did here.

I'd say that suggesting they messed with the speed/spin/launch combination to gain favorable results is far from the "most logical approach." To the contrary, the performance test seems to have followed the USGA standard procedure, only with a 9 degree metal wood instead of laminated.

This test involved hitting the ball with a 9 degree club head traveling at 160 fps, and the strike (as set up) produced spin of 3232 and a initial velocity of 239 fps (whether controlled or a on calibration ball.)  Compare to Frank Thomas's 1978 description of how the iron byron worked:   "In maintaining a set of standard conditions we must first control clubhead velocity and limit it to 160 feet per second, or approximately 109 miles per hour.  . . . . The ball will leave the clubface at approximately 235 feet per second, or 160 miles per hour, spinning at a rate of approximately 3,300 revolutions per minute."   Pretty darn close to what happened here.  They don't seem to have messed with speed or spin, and the launch angles seem to be about what one would expect for a 109 club head.  So where is this manipulation that you see as the "most logical" explanation?  

Moreover, even if there was manipulation, what could they have done differently to get the results you expect?  Going by Bryan's understanding of the top numbers, we are talking about a "smash factor" of 1.494, spin of 3232 and launch angles of 12.7 and 13.1, respectively.  So where is all this room for further optimization?  And how much more distance could you reasonably expect?  

You keep finding reasons to dismiss anything remotely factual.  But the fact remains that no numbers I can find support your belief that the old hard balls flew "very similar" distances to balls like the ProV1x.   All the facts I can find cut the other direction.
__________________________________________________________

Here is another approach.  According to Frank Thomas, when he developed the testing procedure, he tested all the existing balls, and the one that flew absolutely farthest traveled only 279 yards at 160 fps club head speed. So there was no ball that flew like the ProV1x at a similar club head speed.  Given that the balls he tested maxed out at 279 under these conditions, is  273 yards really so far out of the expected results that you would expect the results were manipulated?

Substitute in the 279 number if you want. Doing so would put the Titleist Balata from this test only about 12.5 yards behind the longest ball Thomas tested.  

[JESII]

David,

This test is geared to optimize the appearance of the Tour Edition in comparison to both soft and hard balls. What else would they do? Suggesting I expect certain results is off base. This test has a specific goal, to make the Tour Edition look as good as possible.

No way to know, but if you're right about a calibrated "before test" ball why wouldn't they reference it? Instead, they identify specific launch conditions for this experiment. Why would we assume they didn't actually get those results?

Do you think launch angle and trajectory are the same thing? This is not a scientific definition, but isn't trajectory the longer flight result of launch angle and spin rate? So in this experiment, they're all launching and spinning the same but have a range of trajectories.

At best, this test is still only representative of a single golfer (read; your cornfield experiments)...a perfectly consistent single golfer. If you launch a ball higher the DT gains more, if you launch it lower the balata loses less.

Are you suggesting that the ProV1 would have performed significantly better than the DT under the exact launch conditions used in the Tour Edition test? How much?

Also, do you think there is a difference between swing speed and club head speed?

Regarding your post 413; what are you asking?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()