Jim,
I have no qualms about choosing a "state of the art" ball from the prior era. Balata covered wound balls were used by the vast majority of top players, for good reason. The surlyn covered balls flew farther at high swing speeds, but they were nonetheless considered essentially unusable for better players. More specifically, they were hard to control and did not perform as well on short shots and around the green, and they did not feel as good. The surlyn covered balls appealed to the less discerning masses because
they were cheap and durable, but they were by no means state of the art regarding overall performance characteristics for the reasons mentioned above. Some argue that the old surlyn covered balls also flew farther than wound balatas even at slow swing speeds, but I have my doubts. I'd like to see the proof that a Top Flite carried significantly farther than a balata at an 80 mph swing speed. In short, while balata may have been much more expensive and much less durable, they were still "state of the art" in terms of performance characteristics.
As for the Tour Edition patent application, it says,
"The softer balata covers, although exhibiting enhanced playability properties, lack the durability necessary for repetitive play." That pretty much answers why the balata was still the "state of the art" performance-wise. The actual example shows that the Top Flite and the Wound Titleist DT were only slightly longer than the Titleist Balata; specifically, at a 109 mph swing speed, the Top Flite II was only about
8 yards longer and the DT was only about
2 yards longer than the balata.
The application says NOTHING about the performance of any of the balls at slow swing speeds.
Other than cost, there's no reason a high handicap wouldn't benefit from the new balls as compared to the current "Rock Flites".
This statement has me confused. Isn't it your position that the old Rock Flites were "state of the art" for these golfers, and they flew just as far as any ball on the market today? If so, what is this supposed benefit of either the new ProV1's or the current Top Flite to these golfers? Purely enhanced feel? If the high handicappers didn't need enhanced feel then, why would they need it now? Could it be that playability mattered even then, and that except for price and durability, the old Top Flite's weren't all that great for anyone except for Garland?
Let me try to piece together what would have to happen for Quintavalla's study to be as worthless as you claim...
I wish you'd quit misrepresenting my positions and putting words into my mouth. I found the study to be very interesting and helpful, especially regarding the shape of the distance curve and COR at high swing speeds.
But the study doesn't even begin to attempt to compare the performance results with the prior technology. You must know that by this point, so I am a bit confused why you wasted your time summarizing Quintavalla a few posts above when we both know it doesn't address what is at issue here. You haven't picked up a ghostwriter recently, have you?