[Erik J. Barzeski]

I find your views to be so narrow minded that you don't even begin to understand points being made, because you interpret everything based on your limited knowledge and understanding.

You advertise yourself as a contrarian. Well it is easy to take contrarian views if you don't know anything else.

I couldn't care less what you think, Garland, and find your constant assumptions, misreadings, misunderstandings, putting-of-words-in-mouths, etc. incredibly off-putting, and I will likely waste little to no further effort in engaging with or responding to you. Have a great day.

[Garland Bayley]

Hitting it farther takes MORE skill than hitting it shorter.

This of course goes without saying. So, I don't know why you bothered to say it.

Speed in virtually every sport is part of the skill set. If you have two wide receivers who are otherwise equally skilled, but one is faster than the other… they aren't equally skilled.

This of course also goes without saying. But, since the subject was different skill sets, I don't know why you bothered to say it. You were responding to my post where I intimated a skill other than fast swinging shown below. Notice that slow swinging is not a skill, it is a lack of a fast swinging skill. So the discussion was the ball control skill vs. the fast swing skill. That is why Freddy B was overall skilled as much as Bobby H was overall skilled was pertinent. Joe Zucker correctly identified the different skills being referenced. Why didn't you? This is why I suggest you seem too close minded. You don't seem to pick up on what people are saying and just continue your not necessarily pertinent arguments.

Quote from: Garland Bayley on March 07, 2018, 09:53:21 AM

Those slower swinging players had a skill that has been obsoleted! Why is it not fair to go back to a state that previously existed, but fair to throw caution to the wind and adopt a new state Willy nilly?

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Garland, reply to me all you want… I'm done. I think you missed that point. Responding to you is a waste of time, and you reply with ad hominem, incorrect assumptions, misunderstandings, misreadings, etc. Maybe you're a perfectly good dude in person, but on here, I'll pass. Best wishes.

[Garland Bayley]

...
Garland, vis-a-vis your frequent claims that the longer pros were given a ball that allowed them to hit it even longer and straighter, I give you the following examples to ponder - not that you ponder for long.


I took five long hitters from 1997 - Daly, Woods, Love III, Mickelson. and Couples - and looked at their distance gain by 2003.  In order they gained 12, 5, 11, 22, and 9 yards.  So, Mickelson was the only one who got an egregious distance gain.  Then looking at each of their % of fairways hit comparing 1997 to 2003, the results were, in order, -5, -6, -3, -18, and -9.  So, Mickelson paid a big price in the accuracy game for the large distance gain.  The rest gained some distance and lost some accuracy.  I would conclude based on this limited sample that, although there were distance gains attributable to the ball, there was an accuracy price to pay.

Bryan, Kind of a limited data set. Any idea whether it holds for an all inclusive N longest players? Missing of course is whether they increased their swing speed with the lower spinning ball, and if they did increase their swing speed what would be the results with the previous ball.

...

[Garland Bayley]

...
Jeff,


Re your statement "So the long and short hitter distance gap grew (in absolute yards-not in %)", I'd offer the following chart from a couple of years ago.  The bottom half shows the delta , in yards, between the Tour's longest and shortest hitter.  It's been remarkably stable around 50 yards since 1991.

I would submit that if the players measured changed through time in the tables (which they most likely did) then the tables are not totally pertinent to what Jeff asserted.

[Garland Bayley]

.

[Bryan Izatt]

...
Garland, vis-a-vis your frequent claims that the longer pros were given a ball that allowed them to hit it even longer and straighter, I give you the following examples to ponder - not that you ponder for long.


I took five long hitters from 1997 - Daly, Woods, Love III, Mickelson. and Couples - and looked at their distance gain by 2003.  In order they gained 12, 5, 11, 22, and 9 yards.  So, Mickelson was the only one who got an egregious distance gain.  Then looking at each of their % of fairways hit comparing 1997 to 2003, the results were, in order, -5, -6, -3, -18, and -9.  So, Mickelson paid a big price in the accuracy game for the large distance gain.  The rest gained some distance and lost some accuracy.  I would conclude based on this limited sample that, although there were distance gains attributable to the ball, there was an accuracy price to pay.

Bryan, Kind of a limited data set. Any idea whether it holds for an all inclusive N longest players? Missing of course is whether they increased their swing speed with the lower spinning ball, and if they did increase their swing speed what would be the results with the previous ball.

...

Of course, it's a small sample size, but I thought it better than your sample size of zero to support your statement.  If you want to expand the sample size and control for the other variables, knock yourself out.  For fun I did look at five distance bottom-feeders over the same time period.


So, the five were Kelly, Furyk, Leonard, Pavin, and Maggert.  It's tough to find players that were on tour for 6 years.  Lots of turnover.  Their distance gains were, respectively, +17, +18, +20, +18, and +14.  Yikes they got better distance gains than the long hitters (except Mickelson).  There ought to be an inquiry - how come the short hitters got a disproportionate distance gain.  On the other hand their percentage of fairways hit were  -5, -3, -10, +1, and -1.  So, slightly less accurate and a lot longer.

How about that Pavin guy, he got 20 yards longer and straighter.  He must be the poster boy for you claim.  For the other nine, all got longer and more crooked.

[Garland Bayley]

From what I've read, Frank Thomas knew that the pros could optimize with the TopFlite ball and have significant distance gains so had a new distance regulation ready for the new balls, which the USGA declined to implement.

This is why I suggest the appropriate first step would be to require the spin back in the ball. Since the companies took out patents circa 2000, I think they should have written a reg that circa 2017 they must put the spin back in the balls. How could the equipment companies complain about that?

[Brian Hilko]

Creating a ball with more spin will do little to the modern game. The ball started the lower spin movement but the clubs have brought the spin down dramatically in the last few years while still launching it high and being forgiving. I am seeing 7 iron spin readings that are more than a 1000 less rpms less than just 5 years ago. At this point, I just see them slowing the ball down. Equipment companies could over come a ball with more spin by just building even lower spinning setups for good players. The launch monitor can not be stopped. That is the modern tool that is most overlooked for distance gains.

[Bryan Izatt]

From what I've read, Frank Thomas knew that the pros could optimize with the TopFlite ball and have significant distance gains so had a new distance regulation ready for the new balls, which the USGA declined to implement.

This is why I suggest the appropriate first step would be to require the spin back in the ball. Since the companies took out patents circa 2000, I think they should have written a reg that circa 2017 they must put the spin back in the balls. How could the equipment companies complain about that?

Why would the ball companies complain?  They could all sell millions of new conforming high spin Pro V2 and Pro V2y's.


I'm pretty sure I've asked you this before, with no answer, but let's try again.  Can you please write out your spin regulation for me -concise and in plain English would be good.  And describe the test that the USGA could use to determine if balls conform to the regulation.


Assuming you want to legislate a minimum driver(?) spin rate, don't forget to consider how that would relate to club head speed, loft, dynamic loft, angle of attack, launch angle, face bulge and roll, and face markings.  If you're proposing a minimum spin regulation with any and all drivers now or to come and every swing technique that affects head speed, dynamic loft, launch angle etc then how would you test a ball for every possible driver and player combination.  I think regulating spin is a non-starter.


If you want to increase driver spin rates, maybe you should consider regulating u-grooves across the face of the driver.  U-grooves apparently worked well with wedges even out of the rough.    You'd also have to thicken the face to accommodate the groves - a side benefit of reducing the spring-like effect.

[Kyle Harris]

From what I've read, Frank Thomas knew that the pros could optimize with the TopFlite ball and have significant distance gains so had a new distance regulation ready for the new balls, which the USGA declined to implement.

This is why I suggest the appropriate first step would be to require the spin back in the ball. Since the companies took out patents circa 2000, I think they should have written a reg that circa 2017 they must put the spin back in the balls. How could the equipment companies complain about that?

Why would the ball companies complain?  They could all sell millions of new conforming high spin Pro V2 and Pro V2y's.


I'm pretty sure I've asked you this before, with no answer, but let's try again.  Can you please write out your spin regulation for me -concise and in plain English would be good.  And describe the test that the USGA could use to determine if balls conform to the regulation.


Assuming you want to legislate a minimum driver(?) spin rate, don't forget to consider how that would relate to club head speed, loft, dynamic loft, angle of attack, launch angle, face bulge and roll, and face markings.  If you're proposing a minimum spin regulation with any and all drivers now or to come and every swing technique that affects head speed, dynamic loft, launch angle etc then how would you test a ball for every possible driver and player combination.  I think regulating spin is a non-starter.


If you want to increase driver spin rates, maybe you should consider regulating u-grooves across the face of the driver.  U-grooves apparently worked well with wedges even out of the rough.    You'd also have to thicken the face to accommodate the groves - a side benefit of reducing the spring-like effect.

Bryan,

As it stands now the USGA does not even test for a spin rate. I think the only necessary addition is to set an arbitrary floor for the spin rate with the current tests. That gives us a baseline and another metric. Perhaps that spin rate could be tied to whatever presents the desired "roll-back" off the current testing maximum.

I am curious as to how many consumer golf balls fall well short of the regulated maximum performance standards. My guess is greater than 95%.

I really have no problem with professional athletes subsequently optimizing their swings and equipment around this new test. We seem to forget that optimization is applying a skill set to the sport at the highest level.

Most recreational golfers seem to practice to get luckier, not better, and success should be tied to the latter. That's why this equipment nonsense, to me, is the ultimate non-starter.

[Jason Thurman]

The back-and-forth in this thread is the same back-and-forth we get with every rollback thread. A vocal contingent insists the ball can simply be shortened, but can't even begin to articulate how...


I've never been more satisfied with the golf ball than I am now. I don't have any desire to play balls that spin sideways more aggressively, scuff more easily, cut when hit thin, and go out of round regularly. The golf ball has never been better. I hope the next advancement makes it easier to find. That's about all I would change.


On the other hand, I really loved the steelhead Hogan Jr driver I carried in 1992, and the S2H2 Big Bertha that was my first big boy driver. I wouldn't have replaced the Bertha for 10 years or more if the titanium age hadn't made it obsolete. I still enjoy hitting old persimmon clubs and pull the Bertha out sometimes for fun. But I've never had a graphite shafted titanium/carbon driver that I really enjoy hitting. The sound is awful, the feel is non existent, and the look of a 460cc head is just hideous even after a decade of normalization. Sure, it produces results sometimes. But I really think I had more fun when we were all playing the clubs from a couple decades ago.


The ball will look the same post--rollback. The wedge groove rule gave the governing bodies a simple blueprint for adding restrictions to club technology that is unobtrusive to weekend hacks while disrupting higher level play. They should use that blueprint again.

[Garland Bayley]

Creating a ball with more spin will do little to the modern game. The ball started the lower spin movement but the clubs have brought the spin down dramatically in the last few years while still launching it high and being forgiving. I am seeing 7 iron spin readings that are more than a 1000 less rpms less than just 5 years ago. At this point, I just see them slowing the ball down. Equipment companies could over come a ball with more spin by just building even lower spinning setups for good players. The launch monitor can not be stopped. That is the modern tool that is most overlooked for distance gains.

Do you have a reference I could read on this information? How do players get their approach shots to stop reasonably if the spin is going down drastically? Or, is it that the modern 7 iron used to be called a 5 iron, and the 9 iron should be used to test the spin rate of the previous 7 iron?

[Kalen Braley]

The back-and-forth in this thread is the same back-and-forth we get with every rollback thread. A vocal contingent insists the ball can simply be shortened, but can't even begin to articulate how...

Jason,


I'm baffled by this comment if you've read anything in this forum over the last two months.


I've only posted like 500 times its easily accomplished thru dimpling, and posted videos and layman links on the how.


Reducing distance on a golf ball is simple, Physics 101 kind of stuff...

[Garland Bayley]

...
I'm pretty sure I've asked you this before, with no answer, but let's try again.  Can you please write out your spin regulation for me -concise and in plain English would be good.  And describe the test that the USGA could use to determine if balls conform to the regulation.
...

I have been specifying my regulation from the beginning. My English teachers and profs always said I was a poor writer, so maybe it is my fault for not getting it across. My Ph. D. advisor said my writing was to pithy for readers to decipher without excessive digestion.

There would be no minimum spin from the driver!

I believe there should be a linear relationship between club loft and spin rate. I.e., (using made up numbers for demonstration) if a ball spins 2000 rpm off of 10 degrees, it should spin 2500 rpm off of 20 degrees, 3000 rpm off of 30 degrees, 3500 rpm off of 40 degrees, 4000 rpm off of 50 degrees, 4500 degrees of of 60 degrees.
If a ball spins 3000 rpm off of 10 degrees, it should spin 3500 rpm off of 20 degrees, 4000 rpm off of 30 degrees, 4500 rpm off of 40 degrees, 5000 rpm off of 50 degrees, 5500 degrees of of 60 degrees.
If a ball spins 4000 rpm off of 10 degrees, it should spin 4500 rpm off of 20 degrees, 5000 rpm off of 30 degrees, 5500 rpm off of 40 degrees, 6000 rpm off of 50 degrees, 6500 degrees of of 60 degrees.

All of these produce a line with equal slope, which is why the simplistic numbers were chosen. It is not necessary for the same slope to hold for all balls, just that the data provides a linear relationship. My understanding is that ProV1 typically might spin 2000 from driver, and 9000 from wedge. This sort of bounds spin rates. So perhaps low spin balls would spin 2000 from driver to 7000 from wedge, and high spin balls would spin 4000 from driver to 9000 from wedge. Obviously more realistic numbers could be provided by someone more knowledgeable of the technology.

The test would need to test different swing speeds to verify the linear relationship holds for all swing speeds.

The club faces would all have the same type of surface area, probably without grooves.

There would have to be a regulation to state the slight variation allowed from true linear, because in practice you probably are not going to get exactly linear. Obviously I am not a physicist that can address the actual physical response to such testing.

The USGA would have to develop Titanium Tiger to conduct the tests.

[Garland Bayley]

... scuff more easily, cut when hit thin, and go out of round regularly....

Any ball manufacturer that produced these characteristics in a ball would probably quickly go out of business these days.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Am re-reading this thread since I saw the Titleist counter statement.  Digging deeper, they found that 3 yard increase was the result of 3 major courses, particularly Erin Hills, with such wide fairways that allowed bombing it.  For courses played in both years, the gain was 0.5 yards.


Back to the main topic, I am sort of tired of it.  No new arguments, really. I long for the days when hearing "roll the ball back" meant one of your playing companions wanted to re-try a missed putt.


I am basically not for roll backs, since more folks benefit from better equipment than are hurt by it, by a long shot.  The USGA feels there has to be some limit, and I agree.  That said, there have been many examples in history where many felt we were at or near the end of technological limits in various areas, and they are generally proven wrong.


Basically, I am for bifurcation of courses, not equipment.  Sure, let a few hundred courses with tournament ambitions be built from 7200 (regular PGA Tour distance) to 7600+ (for majors).  Let the rest top out at 7200 max, or ignore the longer hitters and top out at 6800 yards specifically to appeal to the rest of us.  Maybe shorter.


But, back to the main topic, IF there were some equipment changes to reduce control, and by extension reduce free swinging and distance, my bet would be on reduced grooves, because then, all club makers would have an increase in sales as golfers buy new clubs faster to stay in compliance.  Whatever they do with the balls, golfers will need approximately the same number, i.e., no economic benefit to the mfgs.


Just my $0.02

[Erik J. Barzeski]

As it stands now the USGA does not even test for a spin rate. I think the only necessary addition is to set an arbitrary floor for the spin rate with the current tests.

That wouldn't do anything. Ball spin is dependent on spin loft, clubhead speed, layer material/composition, weight distribution throughout the golf ball, and so much more. Keep everything the same except for swing speed and spin goes up with swing speed. Decrease spin loft keeping all else the same and the spin goes down.

That's why LDA guys have 4° drivers that they hit about 8° up. They too don't want spin above 2500 or so, despite 140+ MPH clubhead speeds.

I am curious as to how many consumer golf balls fall well short of the regulated maximum performance standards. My guess is greater than 95%.

Really? How do you figure? I'd be shocked if >5% of golf balls are NOT near the limits, let alone "well short."

I really have no problem with professional athletes subsequently optimizing their swings and equipment around this new test. We seem to forget that optimization is applying a skill set to the sport at the highest level.

I don't think you created a valid test, and I don't know that you could create a valid "spin" test or regulated "setting."

Basically, I am for bifurcation of courses, not equipment.  Sure, let a few hundred courses with tournament ambitions be built from 7200 (regular PGA Tour distance) to 7600+ (for majors).  Let the rest top out at 7200 max, or ignore the longer hitters and top out at 6800 yards specifically to appeal to the rest of us.  Maybe shorter.

Fine by me. Current state of the game, really.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Erik,


Yes, of course.  While it is always easy to point out the flaws in progress (in any field) progress never stops.  Its too ingrained in us to make life better, more convenient, etc.  The naysayers often fail to look at how good things are when looking for flaws.  But, as mentioned, its probably never been as satisfying to hit a golf ball as now.  Not just the distance, but slightly better direction, slightly better sound and feel, etc.  There is no doubt in my mind that golf equipment has evolved just as it should have.


I am not sure where I can find a comparable example of voluntarily restricting sports equipment, other than banning aluminum bats in the majors.  Of course, each team had invested a ton in its own stadium (with municipal help in modern times) but none wanted to rebuild.  Sort of the same in golf, but there is no limit to how many courses can be built, vs. a limit of about 30 for major league sports stadiums.

[Kalen Braley]

Jeff,


Swimming banned hi-tech suites


http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/25/sports/25swim.html


In tennis each tourney uses its own balls.


https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/04/sports/tennis/which-tennis-ball-is-in-use-it-makes-a-difference.html

[Cal Seifert]

Jeff,


Swimming banned hi-tech suites


http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/25/sports/25swim.html


In tennis each tourney uses its own balls.


https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/04/sports/tennis/which-tennis-ball-is-in-use-it-makes-a-difference.html

Lacrosse Bifurcated in 2010
https://www.lacrossemonkey.com/new-head-specifications

Seeing a trend here...

[Kalen Braley]

Even the USGA has bifurcated, with the Groove rule from a few years back to the new OB rule coming up next year...

[Garland Bayley]

Even the USGA has bifurcated, with the Groove rule from a few years back to the new OB rule coming up next year...

With their allowance of "local rules", you could say the USGA has been heavily bifurcated for a long time, could you not?
Over time the groove rule will not be bifurcated.

[Cal Seifert]

Even the USGA has bifurcated, with the Groove rule from a few years back to the new OB rule coming up next year...

With their allowance of "local rules", you could say the USGA has been heavily bifurcated for a long time, could you not?
Over time the groove rule will not be bifurcated.

Which is how they should proceed with the ball rollback.  Gives courses and players time to adapt. 

[Jason Thurman]

The back-and-forth in this thread is the same back-and-forth we get with every rollback thread. A vocal contingent insists the ball can simply be shortened, but can't even begin to articulate how...

Jason,


I'm baffled by this comment if you've read anything in this forum over the last two months.


I've only posted like 500 times its easily accomplished thru dimpling, and posted videos and layman links on the how.


Reducing distance on a golf ball is simple, Physics 101 kind of stuff...

Kalen, you're right. I don't read this forum very often anymore.


But to be clear, I've never doubted your ability to design a golf ball that flies like an aardvark. And yes, I'm well aware that changing dimple patterns also changes ball flight aerodynamics. I just must have missed the post where you clarified how a USGA/R&A rule regulating dimple patterns would be articulated and enforced, and I remain unconvinced that my golfing experience would improve if I was required to adopt your Flying Aardvark.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()