[JESII]

David,

It's not the potential to improve that we're talking about. It's the potential (likelihood may have been a better term) to hit a solid shot with good launch conditions...but still at their 85mph swing speed. The R&A study is fatally flawed because they use all drives, not just good ones. The Tour average numbers are at least representative of more frequent "good" drives for those people, don't you think?

Do you have any proof/evidence that there are more 3 wood or "babied" drivers being hit today?

[Bryan Izatt]

Jim,

I'm pretty sure he doesn't have any proof/evidence since I've asked the same question twice with no answer.

[Bryan Izatt]

David,

To try to focus this,

What feature of the ball and the physical interaction with the club leads to a higher launch angle when the club is robotically swung exactly the same?

[JMEvensky]

Bryan, I remember years ago (10-12?) that True Temper spent a lot of time working on the angle of descent when they got much bigger in graphite shafts. Not sure if this has any bearing on your stuff,but the "down range" affects were clearly something TT thought could be improved through shaft design.

[JESII]

I think the Quintavalla study explained that they had to move the ball slightly as the club head speed went up because the face came into the ball a little different with each increase. Could higher speed launch the ball higher with everything else equal?

[DMoriarty]

Jim,  

A big advantage of the R&A study is that the R&A controlled for club selection.  So the 3 yard gain is for drivers only.  This isn't true with the tour averages.  The tour mixes in drivers, 3 woods, and lesser clubs into the average, and if the rate of usage changed for those clubs, that will impact the difference between the averages.  

I think the 3 woods (and less) are more frequently used lately because on many holes there is no room for the big hitters to hit driver, and/or because the hole lengths are such that the benefits of the extra distance are not worth the risk of hitting a driver.   Changes to the courses haven't yet been able to keep up with the changes to the equipment, so there is less need to hit driver.   I don't watch a lot of pro golf, but I usually pay attention at a few courses, and, anecdotally, big hitters are no longer hitting drivers on holes where they used to always hit driver.

To answer you question, I've never seen a study on the frequency of 3 woods off the tee, but that is my theory and my observation.  

Do you or Bryan or Paul have proof that 3 woods are used at the exact same frequency now as 20 years ago?  If you want to use the changes in tour averages as an exact measure of technological gain, then given the drastic changes to the game, don't you think that you ought to have the burden of proving that your methodology is adequately controlled?

The R&A study is fatally flawed because they use all drives, not just good ones.

Average golfers mishit drives in 1996, and they mishit drives in 2012.  I can't think of any (non-technology driven) reasons why the mishit rate among average golfers might have significantly changed during this time period.  Can you?   If the rate mishit rate is practically constant, then the mishits ought not throw off the relative change in driver distance between 1996 and 2012.

You'd have a much better point if we were discussing the the absolute distance an average golfer could hit the ball with solid contact and ideal (for him/her) launch conditions.  But I am not using those numbers to make that sort of claim. Rather, I am just comparing the relative change from 1996 to 2012.

That is the main difference in my approach to your and Paul's and Bryan's approach.  I am not pretending that either study are reflect lab conditions.  I am not pretending that either figure provides an exact measure.   I am using the two studies to give us a rough approximation of the magnitude of the changes for the true groups.  And, roughly speaking, these data sources suggest that elite players have picked up around 10 times the gains as average players.   Could it be 8 times the gain or 5 times the gain? Sure. Could it be 12 times the gain or 15 times the gains? Sure. Neither source perfect, both may have understated the gains a bit.  So it is difficult or impossible to put an exact number on it.

But to look at these numbers and still claim that elite players and average players have received the same benefit?  Preposterous.  

The Tour average numbers are at least representative of more frequent "good" drives for those people, don't you think?

I agree that tour players more frequently hit good drives.  I am not sure that the tour numbers are more representative of what tour players are capable of doing with a driver, though, because the tour numbers include 3 woods and other clubs off the tee, not just driver.  

Do you have any proof/evidence that there are more 3 wood or "babied" drivers being hit today?

See above.

[Garland Bayley]

I think the Quintavalla study explained that they had to move the ball slightly as the club head speed went up because the face came into the ball a little different with each increase. Could higher speed launch the ball higher with everything else equal?

Higher speed launches the ball at the same angle. The ball just flies higher, because it has more momentum to begin with, thereby allowing it to carry higher and farther.

[JESII]

But to look at these numbers and still claim that elite players and average players have received the same benefit?  Preposterous.  

Only if you insist on holding the 3 yard number as gospel, which is certainly your right.

[JESII]

"Due to anticipated differences in the clubhead presentation at each speed, some specification had to be made in how the ball would be positioned on the tee. The tee position was first set at the highest speed in accordance with the ODS, to provide the proper launch conditions (“ALC”) for the USGA/R&A Calibration Ball. At subsequent speeds, the tee position was changed in order to maintain the vertical position of the impact location on the clubhead, as well as to ensure that the resultant ball trajectory would be straight (ascertained by hitting outdoors). The tee position was left unchanged in the longitudinal (towards the fairway) direction. This completely specified the impact location of the ball on the face at different speeds. The reported results were the average of six hits at each test condition."


Garland,

This is what I was referring to in the Quintavalla piece...not sure what the impact is.

[Garland Bayley]

"Due to anticipated differences in the clubhead presentation at each speed, some specification had to be made in how the ball would be positioned on the tee. The tee position was first set at the highest speed in accordance with the ODS, to provide the proper launch conditions (“ALC”) for the USGA/R&A Calibration Ball. At subsequent speeds, the tee position was changed in order to maintain the vertical position of the impact location on the clubhead, as well as to ensure that the resultant ball trajectory would be straight (ascertained by hitting outdoors). The tee position was left unchanged in the longitudinal (towards the fairway) direction. This completely specified the impact location of the ball on the face at different speeds. The reported results were the average of six hits at each test condition."


Garland,

This is what I was referring to in the Quintavalla piece...not sure what the impact is.

I believe the "different clubhead presentation" would be due to more bending of the shaft at higher speeds.
Clubheads have vertical roll, which means they don't have the same loft at different vertical positions on the clubhead.
Higher speed would launch the ball higher, because the shaft has bent more making the overall loft of the clubhead higher, and contacting in the same vertical position on the clubhead would be higher loft from that bend.

[DMoriarty]

Jim,

I'm pretty sure he doesn't have any proof/evidence since I've asked the same question twice with no answer.

As I explained to Jim, I have never seen a study focusing on this particular issue.

Do you have proof that three wood usage rates have remained constant?

Why do you suppose that the increases in average ball speed are not reflected in the tour averages?  Do you think that driver usage rate among big hitters may have anything to do with it?  

Why do you suppose that the average driving distances for the big hitters don't seem to align with their average balls speeds for drivers?

I have some ideas, but I am curious as to what you think.
________________________________________________________________

David,

To try to focus this,

What feature of the ball and the physical interaction with the club leads to a higher launch angle when the club is robotically swung exactly the same?

I don't know Bryan.  But I do know that in all of the tests of which I am aware, different balls react differently even when impact is controlled with a mechanical club. For example, 100 compression Titleist balatas react differently from Top Flites, Maxfli balatas, the Titleist DT, and even the 90 compression Titleist balata.  Similar balls may react similarly, but when balls are constructed substantially differently with different materials, dimple patterns, different covers, different compression, etc. they tend to react differently.   Do you disagree with this?  

Why should we assume that a 1980 Top Flite with a hard surlyn cover and a 1980s aerodynamics would perform identically to a 2013 five layer ball with different materials, compression, cover, and dimple pattern?   What is the basis for that assumption?

[Doug Siebert]

Bryan, I remember years ago (10-12?) that True Temper spent a lot of time working on the angle of descent when they got much bigger in graphite shafts. Not sure if this has any bearing on your stuff,but the "down range" affects were clearly something TT thought could be improved through shaft design.

It isn't possible for a clubhead or shaft to have "down range effects", any more than the quality of one's follow through affects the shot they just hit.

The entirety of the club's interaction with the ball takes place in a few milliseconds.  After that, whatever down range effects occur are 100% dependent on the construction of the ball.  The clubhead and shaft can only impart different initial launch conditions to that ball (speed, launch angle, spin rate)

[DMoriarty]

But to look at these numbers and still claim that elite players and average players have received the same benefit?  Preposterous.  

Only if you insist on holding the 3 yard number as gospel, which is certainly your right.

Jim, I am not holding the 3 yard number "as gospel" any more than I am holding the 30 yard difference in pga tour averages as gospel!   Both numbers give us a rough ballpark of what is going on here, but neither provide an exact measure of what has happened.  But generally, in terms of distance, the numbers strongly suggest that the elite players have gained a hell of a lot from technology and average players have not.

You seem to want to throw out the R&A study simply because it directly undercuts what you want to believe.  Yet you don't seem to have any valid justification for throwing it out.  

[Doug Siebert]

Average golfers mishit drives in 1996, and they mishit drives in 2012.  I can't think of any (non-technology driven) reasons why the mishit rate among average golfers might have significantly changed during this time period.  Can you?   If the rate mishit rate is practically constant, then the mishits ought not throw off the relative change in driver distance between 1996 and 2012.

I think it is reasonable to expect that golfers today hit fewer mishit drives in 1996 than in 2012, at least in terms of how much they cost distance.  The switch from 200cc to 460cc clubheads is the reason.

I agree that they likely hit exactly the same number of mishits with irons and fairway woods, since those clubheads are pretty much the same size as 20 years ago.

There may be a reason to think golfers today hit slightly more mishits with the driver in 2012 than in 1996 if you measure a "mishit" as "any drive not hit in the exact center of the face", since drivers today are an inch (or something like that?) longer than they were back then.

[DMoriarty]

Doug, I tend to agree that average golfers today probably ought to be mishitting the ball a little less today than they did in 1996, although as you say the shaft lengths might cut a bit in the other direction.  But these things are technologically driven changes, and this is exactly what we are hoping to measure.

[DMoriarty]

Bryan,  regarding the ProV1x technology vs. the Top Flite of 20 years ago.  I am not sure why you see this as so significant.  I tend to think that the distance performance of those old rocks is overstated, but I don't see it is a key point either way.   Why are you going to such lengths to try and make the case that they had identical distances characteristics?

While we are on the issue, here a page from a 1992 patent application from Top Flite.   With the mechanical driver calibrated for a 146 mph ball speed and 2850 spin, the Top Flite Tour XL launched at 12.7 degrees and carried 230.4 yards.   The Titleist DT launched at 12.6 degrees, stayed in the air a bit longer, and carried 226.8 yards.  Plugging these settings into your flightscope application, it looks to me like the modern ball would carry about 8 yards longer (12 yards longer than the DT.)  Do you disagree with this?

You also  might find some of the discussion on COR interesting.



https://www.google.com/patents/US5328959?dq=US+5328959+A&hl=en&sa=X&ei=aBEeU8zBHo3qoATR54KwDw&ved=0CDYQ6AEwAA

[Mark Bourgeois]

VOTP is like VOIP (Internet-based but "voice" is written not spoken:

Bryan:

Regarding your #620, I am aware of those aerodynamic forces and factors you mentioned. Over the years I have had various sources explain it---eg some websites, periodicals, physicists, USGA Research and Test Center etc. However, I believe the relevant questions (which some of them have provided me with various answers over the years), and particularly for some of the participants on this thread, are:

1. Was that particular initially low to steeply rising trajectory something that essentially only high to very high swing speed players could do essentially only when using the old high spin rate "soft/feel" type ball technology? Could they also do it to the same extent with the old solid core hard cover ball technology?

2. How much carry distance did that old initially low (for 100+ yards or so) to quickly rising (after a 100+ yards or so) trajectory lose in carry distance (in neutral wind conditions) compared to the old solid core hard cover ball technology? As a swing speed variable for this question the old ODS limit of 109 and the new ODS limit of 120 should probably be used.

3. Could lower swing speed players generate that kind of trajectory with the old high spin rate "soft/feel" type ball technology, particularly with a driver? (In those days I never saw any slower swing speed players do it; only high to very high swing speed players).

Doug Siebert:

Please feel free to contact me. Mark B can tell you how to reach me. I'd be happy to discuss your questions of that post I made through Mark B

[Garland Bayley]

In the December 2003 edition of Golf World, Top Flite vice president or research and development Tom Kennedy explained that players with swing speeds over 115 mph get a boost with certain balls that the average player does not get. "The transfer of energy from the club to the ball at various speeds is not linear," Kennedy said.

The Future of Golf

What I find illogical about David's insistence that the ProVs were hotter balls than Top Flites is that when they were introduced they were a new technology that probably had some catching up to do. Top Flite had been making balls that would far outstrip the standard if an optimization test were performed, so it seems to me that a new technology that was introduced for its spin off short clubs would not naturally have the length of the balls that were in existence that did not have that spin. Clearly it would seem to me that it would be possible to catch up, but the balls were adaptations of long balls to have spin. Therefore, as initial adaptations it seems likely to me that they would not have the full distance capability.

[DMoriarty]

Garland,

I am not so sure I have "insisted" that the ProV1's were hotter balls than the Top Flites when were they were introduced.  At least that wasn't my intention, so if I did "insist" let me take that back now.    I do suspect that the legends about the distance of the old Top Flites are perhaps  a bit overblown.  They were definitely longer than balatas at high swing speeds, but I haven't been able to find anything indicating that they would compare favorably to the latest ProV1x type modern balls.  Most the patent application and studies (including Frank Thomas research around the time of the creation of the ODS) suggest to me that they weren't as long as today's modern balls.  But I'd readily consider information to the contrary.  It isn't a big deal to me one way or another.

Part of the difficulty with these discussions is that our points of references are rarely well defined.   When I refer to the old Top Flites I am referring to the Top Flites being produced in the 70's, 80's, and early 90's.  I don' know if they had been significantly improved by 2001, but I wouldn't doubt it.   Likewise, based on what I have read, I suspect the modern ball has also been improved since around 2001, at least for those with certain swing characteristics.   

I am not sure there is any support for your contention that Top Flite had been producing balls that "would far outstrip the standard if an optimization test were performed."   Keep in mind that when Thomas came up with his test he was roughly attempting to optimize conditions to maximize distance at the swing speed of a reasonably long pro, then he added something like 6%.  The patent applications indicate that for a long time no ball had even come close to the ODS at the set swing speed. 

[JESII]

Part of the difficulty with these discussions is that our points of references are rarely well defined.   When I refer to the old Top Flites I am referring to the Top Flites being produced in the 70's, 80's, and early 90's.  I don' know if they had been significantly improved by 2001, but I wouldn't doubt it.   Likewise, based on what I have read, I suspect the modern ball has also been improved since around 2001, at least for those with certain swing characteristics.   

Really? Why on earth would you use anything other than a year late 90's to 2000 Top Flite in this discussion?


For what it's worth, do you agree that the Quintavalla study was a good representation of the modern ball at various club head speeds and launch conditions? I understand this isn't directly addressing your theory...just curious of your view of that experiment itself.

Following that question, would it be helpful if a very similar study were done for the Balata balls and a hard ball like the DT, Pinnacle or Top Flite?

In my opinion, if we had a Quintavalla like study of the three types of balls, Old Soft, Old Hard and Modern at a wide range of club head speeds and multiple launch conditions we would know a hell of a lot more than we do. Do you agree?

[Garland Bayley]

Thomas added 6% to the distance achieved with as he noted, the very nonoptimal for Top Flite Iron Byron. He was developing the optimization test so that there would be a basis for limiting balls like Top Flite.

In all likely hood the Top Flite was not enhanced from the early 90s on. Spalding/Top Flite was working on producing the Strata beginning at least in 1996, which eventually became the number one ball on tour until the ProV1 was introduced on tour on October 11, 2000.

[JESII]

Garland,

Are you suggesting the Strata was played more than a Titleist ball in even a single event? I'd be interested to see proof.

[Garland Bayley]

Garland,

Are you suggesting the Strata was played more than a Titleist ball in even a single event? I'd be interested to see proof.

Titleist was perhaps the last company to produce solid multipiece balls. So players were leaving them in droves since there were longer balls out there that had high spin off the short clubs. At a time during 2000, Strata co-opted the Titleist commercials about being the most common ball used on tour, and Titleist was not making that commercial claim. The mass exodus from the Titleist ball is what allowed the introduction of the ProV1 to be the largest selling ball introduction as players switched back.

[DMoriarty]

Really? Why on earth would you use anything other than a year late 90's to 2000 Top Flite in this discussion?

Because when most people are talking about the legends of the old rock balls, they are referring to the ball as it generally existed in the 70's-mid-90's.  The Surlyn Cover technology was introduced before then, it that was supposed to be the magic of this ball, wasn't it?

Also, while we mark the "new ball era" as beginning in 2001 with the ProV1, the reality is that ball technology was rapidly changing in the mid-to-late 1990's, and some companies (including Spalding) had already taken significant steps toward that new technology before the ProV! was introduced.  So if we use a 2000 Top Flite we may be using a ball modern ball which is quite different that the typical "Rock Flite" we all recall from earlier. In other words, if our goal is to compare the modern ball to the old "Rock Flite" we have to be careful to choose a Top Flight without the improvements of the modern ball era.

For what it's worth, do you agree that the Quintavalla study was a good representation of the modern ball at various club head speeds and launch conditions? I understand this isn't directly addressing your theory...just curious of your view of that experiment itself.

I think the mechanical test and the fixed condition test were a "good representation of the modern ball" for swing speeds of 90 mph and up.  I think it would be a much better experiment if they had included swing speeds below this range.   Also it would have been nice to see the results under a variety of launch conditions (different club heads) but I strongly suspect the results would be in line. 

(The way the set up their “Optimum” launch conditions modeling doesn't really make sense to me, but that is very much a side issue, so I'll leave that out for now.)   

Following that question, would it be helpful if a very similar study were done for the Balata balls and a hard ball like the DT, Pinnacle or Top Flite?

Yes, definitely. 

In my opinion, if we had a Quintavalla like study of the three types of balls, Old Soft, Old Hard and Modern at a wide range of club head speeds and multiple launch conditions we would know a hell of a lot more than we do. Do you agree?

Yes.  That has always been one of my main criticisms of the Quintavalla study.  It didn't compare the new balls to the previous technology.  And without such a comparison, it doesn't tell us much of anything about how different golfers have fared relative to the old technology.

(Two of my other criticisms are that it didn't test over a broad enough range of swing speeds, and that the USGA didn't seem to understand the limitations of its own methodology.)

[DMoriarty]

Garland,

I think the Iron Byron was not that far off of "optimal" for the time period in which it was created.   Whether it was 'optimal" or not, I think Thomas gave us a rough idea of the launch conditions being produced on Iron Byron (ball speed, launch angle, and spin) and I think that modern balls perform better under similar launch conditions. 

I also think your claim that the Strata became the number one ball on the PGATour is mistaken.  According to the Titleist propaganda ("Technology and Tradition"), by 2000 the use on tour of the solid core ball had grown to 27%, which is significant but well short of a majority. 

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()