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

[DMoriarty]

Jim,  I've looked at a bunch of these applications and I cannot agree with your speculation that they were trying in any significant manner to rig the test.  You ask, "What else would they do?"  They would try to build a ball as specified, and follow the USGA industry standard for testing.  That seems to be what they did.

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?

I agree they don't do a very good job of explaining the setup of the example, but this is not all that uncommon especially when they follow USGA testing protocol.  The reason I assume they didn't get those exact results for every ball is because, in 1990, I don't think it was possible use a mechanical golf club to hit a number of different golf balls at a set swing speed and come up with exactly identical spin rates and initial velocities for every ball. But again, it is not worth arguing over because my conclusions are the same either way. 

If you want, then lets assume that every ball spun at exactly 3232 and had an initial velocity of 239 fps.  Do you think that is some sort of perfect combination for their ball?  Is it also a perfect combination for the Balata?   But it is horrible for the Top Flite and the DT?   My point is that even if it isn't ideal for any particular ball, for this particular swing speed it cannot be too far off.  At least not enough to bring the DT and the Top Flite up to anywhere near the ProV1x levels.   Leaving club head speed and initial velocity alone (one is set and other is already very close to optimal) what would you adjust to find all this distance you seem to be missing?

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.

I don't think they are the same, but when this application refers to "trajectory" it seems very clear that they are referring to launch angle, and they weren't all launching the same.

At best, this test is still only representative of a single golfer (read; your cornfield experiments)...a perfectly consistent single golfer.

By this logic you've essentially reduced much of the history of USGA implement testing to nothing but screwing around in a cornfield.   I agree that testing at a single swing speed fixed conditions is not ideal and have long argued that.  But to completely discount the results of such tests is unjustified.   Such tests might not tell us everything we'd like to know, but they still tell us plenty.   

If you launch a ball higher the DT gains more, if you launch it lower the balata loses less.

Looking at various optimizers, these launch angles were right in the wheel house of optimal.  Adjusting the launch angles a bit up or down from here will probably not significantly alter the overall results.  A few yards maybe, but not enough to be relevant in this conversation.

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?

Yes.  Between 20 and 30 yards at 3232 spin and 239 fps initial velocity. (More if we don't artificially lock in the spin rate for either.)

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

I guess one could make an argument that they are different, but I have been using them interchangeably, and that is pretty standard to use them interchangeably. 

Regarding your post 413; what are you asking?

As I understand your position, you think these numbers would be much different if the test was optimized for the Top Flite, DT and (presumably) the Balata.  Given that swing speed is fixed (and you think initial velocity is fixed), and given that launch angle appears to be somewhere near optimal already, then how much distance do you think could possibly be gained by adjusting launch conditions?

[Bryan Izatt]

After some sober second thought I think the patent application launch conditions most probably do reflect their attempt to calibrate their machine and reference ball to the USGA standard of the time.  Once calibrated, then they tested the other balls.  That is the way the USGA currently do their ODS ball testing. First they calibrate Iron Byron with their reference balls to get their standard launch conditions; then hit the balls being tested with Iron Byron to get the launch conditions for that particular balls (which of course will be different from the reference ball), then measure the flight of the ball in their test tunnel using a baseball like pitching machine to launch each ball according to the launch conditions achieved for that ball in the Iron Byron test, then use an algorithm to calculate distance based on the tunnel test results.  Back in the patent time they didn't do the the tunnel part of the test, rather they physically measured the distances outdoors on their test range, subject to the vagaries of the weather and turf conditions.  I suppose that's why there was a greater margin of latitude in overall distance back then.

The patent data looks a little suspect given the longer roll out for the balata ball.  This would suggest that the TF II flew a little higher and had higher spin when it landed.

I agree with Jim that they would most likely try to find the data that best supported their patent application although there is no way to prove that point or not.

In doing a little searching around the internet I came across a number of swing speed vs distance studies.  These all appear to be post 2000 so don't address Balata balls, but they do demonstrate that the curves and their slopes are different across different tests and presumably different balls and clubs.



And, I completed my own little 1998 Tour Balata vs 2013 ProV1x totally uncontrolled and unscientific test.  FWIW here is the result.  What struck me is that there was not a whole lot of difference in ball speed and distance across the range of swing speeds, especially given that the Tour Balata is 15 years old and presumably a little deteriorated.  That reminds me, I need to weigh it to see if it's dessicated.

Based on this test (FWIW) I'm not surprised that there isn't a huge difference between the Tour Balata and the TF II in the patent application test.





Re swing speeds, I'm impressed that Garland and Doug were swinging at 109 mph back in the day.  That was supposed to be the swing speed of "reasonably long" professional players of the day. 

If 109 mph swings went with the long hitters of the day, then long hitters today are around 120 mph.  That's a gain of 11 mph over a couple of decades and no doubt attributable to light club heads, shafts and grips and more aggressive swinging aided by high MOI titanium heads (and not the ball).  That increase in swing speed is consistent with about 25 to 35 extra yards regardless of ball.  My jury is still out on how much the club changes and resultant swing speed gains contributed to the distance gains from 1995 to 2005 vs how much the ball contributed.

Off to Florida now.

[DMoriarty]

Bryan,  Thanks for your efforts.  

I am not sure I would accept without proof your speculation that the swing speeds of long hitting professionals has increased by 11 mph over the past few decades.  The average swing speed on tour is 112 mph.  Do you think it was only 101 a couple of decades ago?  I doubt that.  

The nice thing about the old tests being at 109 mph, is that it gives us an apples to apples comparison point. Looking a the studies you came up with along with various optimizers and tests, it seems that there has been a significant increase for the 109 mph swinger.

Have fun in Florida.

[Peter Pallotta]

David - I too find it hard to accept/understand how professional swing speeds might've increased that much, as I don't think golfers have changed/improved nearly as much over the years as say football or basketball or hockey players. But as Bryan notes, the technology itself (and not any new-found athleticism) might explain some/much of the assumed increased. I'm thinking of Nick Price, who in an interview a while back noted that he'd learned the game (and developed his swing) with the older equipment and so never swung as fast/hard as he (physically) could because the equipment forced him to opt for control/consistency over maxium distance. The result, Price went on to say, was that years later he found himself unable, when the bigger heads and higher MOIs of the new drivers came along, to learn to swing much faster/harder, and so found himself unable to take as much advantage of the new equipment as did younger players (and even some of his peers). He concluded that, if he were training a young person to be a golfer today, he's start them off by swinging as hard/fast as possible on every shot, and then worry about control later. (Interestingly, I remember reading Jack Nickluas say that this is how he was taught as a youngster....which might explain why he was so long in his day). In short, the moderns may indeed be swinging that much faster,if only because they know they can....but also, if I can draw this from what Price is saying, this new found swing speed produces more than a commensurate/proporitonal increase in distance.

Peter

[Brent Hutto]

Just go watch Tour player swing their drivers for a few minutes. You will no longer dis-believe the plain and obvious truth that they are indeed swinging faster than a "few decades ago".

This is taking denial to a whole new level. Bunch of damned lawyers.

[jeffwarne]

Just go watch Tour player swing their drivers for a few minutes. You will no longer dis-believe the plain and obvious truth that they are indeed swinging faster than a "few decades ago".

No question that is true.
They are better coached
better athletes choose to play golf
They are stronger and better conditioned

That said, MOST of their gains have come from equipment
adding 2-3 inches to a driver and making it the same weight or lighter is the biggest producer of more clubhead speed.

Ball speed is enhanced by
Faces that rebound
drivers that spin it less
balls that spin less

So it's not just the increase in clubhead speed, but more importantly ball speed

Throw in ideal optimization of shaft, clubhead, and ball and you get the final gains.

All that said, if you went back to wood and balata, today's players would on average be somewhat longer IMHO due to paragraph one, as well as some form of ideal optimization of that equipment

[DMoriarty]

Peter and Jeff,

I agree with most of what each of you wrote.  In particular, I agree that there has been an increase in swing speed and, consequently, ball speed.  And I agree that much of that increase is a direct result of technology.  I do have my doubts about Bryan's estimate of an 11 mph increase for "reasonably long" hitters, but I could be wrong about that.  

Regardless of the magnitude of the increase in swing speed on tour, I do think that there has also been a large increase even if we hold club head speed constant.  We can isolate and identify this component of the gain by focusing on changes in distance at a fixed swing speed.   Looking at old patent applications, it seems that tour calibre balata balls (the "state of the art" for pgatour at the time) flew somewhere around 265 yards (carry and roll) at 109 mph swing speed (using a metal driver and standard USGA procedures regarding setup and launch conditions.)

Today, with the new equipment, this seems to have increased by around 30-40 yards for the same swing speed, has it not?  
___________________________________________________


Brent, I know it is easier and more fun to toss out insults based on stawman arguments, but if you are back to discuss this it might be more productive if you actually consider what has been written.  I've never denied they are swinging faster.  I do, however, question Bryan's rough estimate that the swing speed has increased by 11 mph for "reasonably long" professionals.  Maybe statistics exist to back that up, but if so I'd like to see them.  

Here, again, is a statistic for you.  According to PGA tour stats the average swing speed for a pgatour pro is 112 mph, which is only 3 mph over the old standard for "reasonably long" professionals.

[Bryan Izatt]

David,

Comparing the reasonably long swing speeds used to set the ODS to a tour average swing speed today seems counterintuitive to me.

[Mark Bourgeois]

Haven't followed this thread but re the Bryan's graphics: is the relationship of Y to X actually linear? Qualitatively I have read many times it's not, that Tour players (maybe even just the fastest swinging among that cohort) achieve a distance gain disproportionate to their swing speed differential to real golfers like you and me.

Yes / no / maybe?

[DMoriarty]

Mark,  If you look at the performance of a single ball across a variety of swing speeds, then I don't think what you are saying is accurate. I think the opposite is true.  At very high swing speeds, there are actually diminishing returns for a single ball.   It actually becomes more complicated, though, when we consider multiple balls, but still at very high swing speeds there are diminishing returns for each incremental increase in swing speed.    [I've hypothesized that they may gain disproportionately when we consider the evolution of the ball over time  (balata to professional to ProV1 to ProV1x), but not everyone agrees with me.]
_________________________________________________________________________

Bryan,

It is definitely not the best way to compare, but I think it is probably better than your method of just eyeballing it.  I'd guess that are plenty of professionals out there who are "reasonably long" yet who don't normally swing at the 120 mph that you used for your guestimate of reasonably long professionals.

[Jim Nugent]

All that said, if you went back to wood and balata, today's players would on average be somewhat longer IMHO due to paragraph one, as well as some form of ideal optimization of that equipment

Even though they built their swings with modern equipment?  Several years ago, one of the better young pros on tour -- Snededker? -- played a round with the old equipment.  He got slaughtered, hitting lots of 230 yard drives that squirted this way and that, shooting around 80.  That was just one round.  Maybe if he practiced he could do better.

The higher degree of athleticism in today's player can't mean that much, when a 60 year old man comes an inch away from winning golf's most prestigious tournament.  

[Mark Bourgeois]

David,

Hold on a sec -- and apologies if this has been hashed over somewhere in the previous 17 pages -- it seemed to me there was general agreement that not all golfers could "unlock" the extra distance of the Pro V1. Well, everyone could get something more out of the ball (and its peers) than out of previous ball generations, but that pros or a subset of pros got more of a jump than everybody else.

It sounds like this is a contested point, which is surprising to me. Again, not based off any structured research / evidence I can recall (which isn't to say I didn't see something like that, but if I did I don't remember).

I can see where there would be diminishing returns as a golfer approached the performance limits of his equipment, but below those parameters, covering say swing speeds of 80-115, I thought the 115mph speed would get proportionally more distance from the ball than would the 80mph swinger, or that as swing speeds increased at some point the marginal increase in distance would increase.

Hmm, is there data out there on this point? I would guess Trackman might have it.

Mark

[Doug Siebert]

Re swing speeds, I'm impressed that Garland and Doug were swinging at 109 mph back in the day.  That was supposed to be the swing speed of "reasonably long" professional players of the day.  

If 109 mph swings went with the long hitters of the day, then long hitters today are around 120 mph.  That's a gain of 11 mph over a couple of decades and no doubt attributable to light club heads, shafts and grips and more aggressive swinging aided by high MOI titanium heads (and not the ball).  That increase in swing speed is consistent with about 25 to 35 extra yards regardless of ball.  My jury is still out on how much the club changes and resultant swing speed gains contributed to the distance gains from 1995 to 2005 vs how much the ball contributed.

Where did I say I was swinging at 109 mph back in the day?  I was measured (albeit with something with questionable accuracy) at 117 mph with my normal driver swing, and 126 mph when I really let loose (with about a 10% chance I'd hit it square and straight enough to be playable)

What pros of the day were swinging at versus me isn't any more relevant than what pros are swinging at today versus some long hitting amateurs.  There always have been and always will be guys who can swing faster than the pros but that's the only element in which they beat the pros, and they're soundly defeated in all others such as accuracy, consistency and short game.

Now, I have no doubt I'd have added a few mph to those numbers if instead of a 42.75" 130g shaft I had a modern lighter longer graphite shaft.  Exactly how many, I have no idea.  I don't see where you assume this mysterious 10% jump in swing speeds over the past few decades has come from.  Do you think the longer/lighter shaft has that much effect?  That seems doubtful to me.  Or is this yet another attempt to claim "fitness" has anything do with with swing speed, despite all the evidence that shows the distance jumps happening only in certain distinct points in time where technology changed - PROVING that fitness has little or nothing to do with the distance gains.

[Sean_A]

better athletes choose to play golf
They are stronger and better conditioned
[/quote]

Yes, better than Jack's generation, but in the big scheme of sports, golfers are at or very near low man on the athlete scale.  I am with you, equipment is the overwhelming reason for distance gains.  I have heard this again and again and its been said for 100 years.  Does anybody really think this trend will stop even with further equipment controls?  Does anybody really think a rollback is in the cards?  After 100 years, is it perhaps the case the distance killers should seek an alternative solution to courses being altered to accommodate equipment?  Has anybody actually conducted research to demonstrate just how much course changes are directly related to distance and distance only?  Or do folks think courses would have stayed the same for 100 years if not for increases in distance?  Its usually best to determine the nature of the problem before deciding on a course of action. 

Ciao   

[Garland Bayley]

... Does anybody really think this trend will stop even with further equipment controls?  ...

Frank Thomas and other USGA equipment gurus think it is already stopping simply by the physics of the matter. That is part of the reason some of them argue for no additional controls.

[DMoriarty]

Mark,  

It has been discussed at great length in past threads, but at the risk of getting back into that morass, I'll try to briefly explain it.  

There are at least two different ways to look at it.  One way is to look at the characteristics of a individual balls hit a different swing speeds.  The USGA took this approach in a 2006 study where they looked at the distance characteristics of five different brands of tour balls at swing speeds between 90 and 125 mph.  Results were slightly different between each ball, but generally and approximately:  Between 90 and 100, the mechanical golfer picked up just over 3 yards for each additional mph club head speed. Between 100 and 110; the mechanical golfer picked up just a bit less, about 3 yards per mph; and between 110-120 mph, the hitting machine picked up around 2.5 yards or a bit less per one mph increase.  (Another way to look at this, is for each decrease in mph, the lower swing golfer lost more yardage than the big hitter.) This is what I referred to when I mentioned diminishing returns at high swing speeds.

A second approach (and I think more useful approach) is to consider how much the new technology benefited various players at different swing speeds as compared to the previous state of the art technology.  Unfortunately, we don't have a clean study for this one, but if we did, we would look at how much the slow swinging golfer gained (or lost) from the new technology, compared to how much the fast swinger gained from the new technology. Take the Pro V1x, for example.  My hypothesis is that a golfer with a slow club head speed (say 80 mph) wouldn't gain much of any yardage with a Pro V1x as compared to previous technology, and he/she might even lose yardage.  On the other hand, a golfer with a high swing speed (say 120 mph) would gain a bunch, maybe 30 or 40 yards or more.  This is what I think most golfers were trying to express when they noticed that the fast swingers seemed to "unlock" the extra distance with these new balls- they seemed to get a bigger jump as compared to the old technology.  There is nothing magical about these balls, its just that they don't seem to work any better for average golfers than did the old balls.

As for data, there is the 2006 USGA study by Quintivalla, but I don't know if it is still on accessible on the USGA website.   There are also lots of attempts by others to try to quantify the differences between the old balls and the new balls, some of which have been discussed in this thread, and all of which have some potential shortcomings.
_______________________________________________________

Sean,  

While there have been a series of jumps in distance brought on by technology over the past 100 years or so, this latest jump is by far the largest in history, at least for the longer hitters. Regardless, if you can figure out a way to get clubs and developers to "seek an alternative solution to courses being altered to accommodate equipment," then I am all ears.  But so far as I can tell, over the history of golf, courses have been lengthened to accommodate the changes in distance brought on by technology, and so far as I can tell that is continuing today.

I haven't done a formal study (nor do I intend to) but I have looked at how and when course lengths have been increased over the years, and I continue to do so.  While it would be impossible to prove direct causation, there seems to be a definite correlation between timing of jumps in distance brought on by new technology, and the the lengthening of courses.  For example, the old literature in the early part of last century is full of examples of courses that were lengthened/changed and the reason most often given was that they had become outdated because of the haskell ball.  

As for what would have happened if technology hadn't advanced since then, it is impossible to say.  But having played with some of the old equipment, I cannot imagine that course builders would be building many 7500 yard courses if modern golfers were still playing with hickories and haskells.  
_______________________________________________

Garland, go back and look at these conversations from around 2000 and you will see the same arguments were being made then.  Supposedly we were just at the limits of physics and there would be no more big jumps.  Then came the big jumps in 2001 and again in 2003.   We haven't had a big jump since, but I'll be surprised if we've seen the last one. Even if we are at the limit (which I doubt) the courses are already screwed as it is.

[JESII]

A second approach (and I think more useful approach) is to consider how much the new technology benefited various players at different swing speeds as compared to the previous state of the art technology.  Unfortunately, we don't have a clean study for this one, but if we did, we would look at how much the slow swinging golfer gained (or lost) from the new technology, compared to how much the fast swinger gained from the new technology. Take the Pro V1x, for example.  My hypothesis is that a golfer with a slow club head speed (say 80 mph) wouldn't gain much of any yardage with a Pro V1x as compared to previous technology, and he/she might even lose yardage.  On the other hand, a golfer with a high swing speed (say 120 mph) would gain a bunch, maybe 30 or 40 yards or more.  This is what I think most golfers were trying to express when they noticed that the fast swingers seemed to "unlock" the extra distance with these new balls- they seemed to get a bigger jump as compared to the old technology.  There is nothing magical about these balls, its just that they don't seem to work any better for average golfers than did the old balls.

David,

The entire post was quite helpful to illustrate the foundation of your position so thank you. I wish I had been able to ask the right questions that would lead you to that explanation.

The above quoted passage is what I found most worthy of discussion because it's really the heart of our disagreement.

Of course you realize that there was a very clear line dividing the type of balls different caliber of players played. Better players used the short hitting balata type balls because they performed so much better with irons and around greens. The vast majority of lesser players used hard balls, whether it was the DT, or real hard rocks like the Pinnacle.

When the ProV1 came out, it wrapped a soft controllable cover around the rock hard inside the distance balls always featured. This was obviously overwhelmingly popular because it brought together the two key elements all golfers wanted. Durability for higher handicaps, and control for lower handicaps.

You've focused your debate around the distance issue, and I understand why, but only the better players made the decision to change ball types. Essentially they switched from the balata to the Pinnacle for driving distance purposes.

[jeffwarne]

David,

Comparing the reasonably long swing speeds used to set the ODS to a tour average swing speed today seems counterintuitive to me.

Interesting tweet from a friend of mine
Gary Woodland hitting on range recently
2014 Callaway BB driver 316 carry, 127 CH speed, 187 ball speed
1980's wood driver   268 carry, 114 CH speed, 168 ball speed
similar spin rate on both
ProV1 x ball, so you can probably subtract a few yards if using balata, putting him near 260 carry?
More Nicklaus types of numbers-who was a hell of an athlete as well

I'm a bit scared to see how short I carry hit it with balata and a steel shafted 43 in wood driver
Super athletic guy, but 48 yards of gains from technology, not counting ball

[JESII]

Jeff,

My contention is that Woodland was using what is, for him, the perfect driver and ball combo in today's gear but if he took the time he'd find a driver/ball/swing combo to close some of that gap. Not all, but a healthy amount.

[jeffwarne]

Jeff,

My contention is that Woodland was using what is, for him, the perfect driver and ball combo in today's gear but if he took the time he'd find a driver/ball/swing combo to close some of that gap. Not all, but a healthy amount.

Jim,
agreed. he would "optimize" to the best of his ability, in that era they used trial and error, though TOUR players had better access to trial
he's scary strong, and if nothing else a longer driver would give him a few more yards, though that's a still pretty long carry circa 1985

[Peter Pallotta]

Jim - did you see my post recounting Nick Price's experience? My memory is pretty good, and I think I captured what he was saying pretty well. And what he was saying seemed to be that, because he'd trained himself/his swing to achieve control and accuracy rather than distance, and because consequently that swing wasn't 'full out', he found that with the new balls and drivers he didn't get the same big distance gains that others got, including some of his contemporaries. (He might have been talking about someone like Greg Norman.) He seems to be suggesting that a slower swing speed was disproportionately disadvantaged by the new ball/club. (And interestingly, it seems that another 'control' player from Price's era, i.e. Nick Faldo, had pretty much the same experience as Price did -- when the new balls and clubs came out, he stopped being competitive, as he couldn't/would't change his swing enough to get the big distance gains that others were getting.) Okay, maybe it's not just the ball (and your post from a while back noting the perfect storm of balls and clubs and even tees all coming out around the same time might support that.)  But Jack Nicklaus knows a thing or two, and wasn't it almost immediately after the Prov1 came out that Jack started complaining about "the ball" as the main problem with courses becoming obsolete?

Peter

[JESII]

Does anyone know the math on how much speed the club head picks up based on 2 inch longer shafts? Assuming everything else (core rotational speed) is exactly the same.

[Mark Bourgeois]

Jim, I don't but ceteris paribus it's just math -- I mean, "determining the precise change in speed is an exercise left to the reader."

David, echoing Jim, a helpful post, thank you.

Peter, remember when pro golfers used to say the ideal swing was less than full-out, that as with baseball optimal performance came at 90% of full effort?

[Peter Pallotta]

Jim - had to go look that up, just to keep this going. Let's stick to just club head speed (and leave alone the possibility that a longer shaft might produce more mishits). But we do have to note, apparently, that a longer shaft might also weigh more than a shorter one (which might 'even things out', club head speed wise). So, interestingly, the example engineers with Cleveland Golf give is this: "The same energy that would produce a swing of about 96 miles per hour with a 45-inch driver weighing 325 grams would generate a swing speed of roughly 102 mph with a 46½-inch driver weighing 285 grams."

Mark - i do remember that. But Nick Price's comments made me think that not all of them were following that, or at least that all 90%s are not created equal.

Peter

[JESII]

Peter,

I did. I think it's an entirely different issue...but I may be stepping out too far with this theory, but...

I think the "control" guys on Tour, and Price and Faldo were certainly two of the best, got psyched out by the ProV1 because they thought they needed to hit it further. Look at Price's driving distance today versus 1993. I don't actually know it, but I bet it's equal to longer. He (they) did gain distance from the ProV1 (and it's ilk) but they felt they were on the wrong side of the tipping point. 600 yard par 5's became reachable to the top couple of percent, 450 yard holes were driver-wedge etc...for Price, the 450 hole used to be Driver 5 iron for him and Driver 8 iron for long hitters. He knew he could compete/win that contest because of how good he was with a 5 iron and on the 600 yard hole, they all had a wedge in. Now the 450 hole is an 8 iron for him and a wedge for the longer guys and he felt he couldn't compete.

They all think/thought they needed to pick up tons of yardage because the other guys had reached a new plateau enabling them to exploit a certain length hole.

I'm 100% certain that if they focused on their strengths, and the advantages the ProV1 gave them, they would not have the same negative impression of that evolution. If you ask me, it adds more to a control player than a bomber if they focus on exploiting it and make their putts. The balls going straighter gave them the ability to really pick apart golf courses if they kept that as their focus. Maybe a 43.5" driver...

That said, I think Price may have been referencing younger players (not Greg Norman) because they have grown up being able to blast away with the ProV1 and long Graphite/Titanium drivers. I think there is merit to his comments there, but these are not his peers. These are today's Jason Day's who can swing as hard as possible on any shot knowing the ball isn't going too far off-line. These are the guys/generation Pat talks about as a rising tide of golfers that hit the ball astronomical distances and how can courses prepare a defense.