[Garland Bayley]

...
Wouldn't it be infinitely easier to make the ball larger or lighter or both.  Either, by the way would probably drive spin up a bit.
...

Lighter balls have already been rejected by the public in a previous ruling attempt. Why would the public now accept a ball that can be blown around by wind even more? Not only would it be blown around by the wind more, my experience with Cayman balls would seem to indicate it would be harder to flight the ball down to avoid the wind.

Making the ball bigger has some merit in my mind, as it becomes easier to hit. Making courses grow longer grass would have the same effect, at least if it is a grass that will hold the ball up. I've played with seniors that aim for fairway edges to get the ball lift from the higher grass. Fortunately, I'm not quite there yet. Besides, I would probably hit the rough on the opposite side of the fairway from where I aimed.

[Bryan Izatt]

Bryan,

Thanks for your effort in producing the graphs given. Where did you obtain the data?

The problem of course is that the graphs given don't come close to capturing data needed for the testing procedure that I specified at your request. In fact, showing linear at different club head speeds as your data does would seem to me to possibly demonstrate non-linearity for the specified test, thereby indicating the balls would fail my proposed test. The real crux would seem to show up in the 3 to 4 iron data that appears to transition (at about 25 degrees loft) to a steeper line for the other irons. This would seem to demonstrate how the balls are claimed to work. At lower lofts, the clubhead compresses deep into the ball and doesn't spin it as much. At higher lofts, the ball catches the outer layers and causes the ball to spin more absent the compression into the inner layers. The descriptions of how these balls work says to me they were designed to be nonlinear (a claim I made that you think is false).

Garland,


The data came from Trackman.  I'm sure you can find it if you search a little online.  The two takeaways for me is that the relationship between loft and spin is about as linear as you can get in the real world with an uncontrolled test population.  The differences between the ladies and men tours tells me that swing speed is a factor in causing spin, but not a large factor.







The data doesn't speak to your desire to have other balls that have a linear relationship of spin to loft that parallel these lines but higher or lower.  I expect that there would be a different line and a similar slope if all the tour gus and girls used 2-piece surlyn balls.


Watch the following short video from Trackman where they talk about spin.  They assert that spin depends on club design, ball design, friction, impact location, speed and spin angle.  You'll note that the ball is only one of six factors impact spin rate.  That is why I think your quixotic quest to regulate spin through the ball alone is doomed to fail.


https://blog.trackmangolf.com/spin-rate/


Here's another interesting article for you to read.  They tested four generations of Titleist balls.  Surprisingly the initial velocity and spin rate for the tour balata ball wasn't so much different than the first generation Pro V1.  Yet the new balls go way further than the balata and Professional balls.  They did note that the older balls were 5 - 8% lighter than the new balls (which I think results from them having dried out over 20 years).  But they didn't seem to note that some of the distance loss in the old balls was probably related to their lighter weight.  Obviously the higher COR of the solid cores in modern balls accounts for a lot of the gain in distance for the modern balls.  But, the spin rates were very similar across the four generations which I think speaks to your desire to go back to what you perceived was a spinnier Tour Balata ball.

https://www.andrewricegolf.com/andrew-rice-golf/2011/08/evolution-of-a-golf-ball

They also mention that the Tour Balata moved around more.  Given the spin rates were similar, I would attribute some of that to their lighter weight.  You did mention that the "public" rejected lighter balls in the past.  Not sure which "public" that was, but do you suppose that they would embrace a spinnier ball that is more directionally challenged when they didn't like lighter balls that moved around too much?


In case you've forgotten, I've seen you play and I know about your directional control issues - even the orange balls were hard to find.  Strangely it never seemed to affect you in handicapped match play. 

[Garland Bayley]

Garland,


The data came from Trackman.  I'm sure you can find it if you search a little online.  The two takeaways for me is that the relationship between loft and spin is about as linear as you can get in the real world with an uncontrolled test population. 

If it is truly linear, then I reserve the right to limit the slope of the line. The previous status was a balata ball that spun high off the driver, and high off the wedges, while the two-piece balls spun low off the driver, and low off the wedges. I believe that worked. Reinstating that situation would seem to me to be the most logical solution.

The differences between the ladies and men tours tells me that swing speed is a factor in causing spin, but not a large factor.







The data doesn't speak to your desire to have other balls that have a linear relationship of spin to loft that parallel these lines but higher or lower. I expect that there would be a different line and a similar slope if all the tour gus and girls used 2-piece surlyn balls. 

You're dreaming. Let me know when you wake up. If that were so, then there would have been no need to invent the ProV1 generation of balls. Every pro would have been playing TopFlites.


Watch the following short video from Trackman where they talk about spin.  They assert that spin depends on club design, ball design, friction, impact location, speed and spin angle.  You'll note that the ball is only one of six factors impact spin rate.  That is why I think your quixotic quest to regulate spin through the ball alone is doomed to fail.


https://blog.trackmangolf.com/spin-rate/


Here's another interesting article for you to read.  They tested four generations of Titleist balls.  Surprisingly the initial velocity and spin rate for the tour balata ball wasn't so much different than the first generation Pro V1.  Yet the new balls go way further than the balata and Professional balls.  They did note that the older balls were 5 - 8% lighter than the new balls (which I think results from them having dried out over 20 years). 

The relatively quick degradation of the balata balls is well known. I am sure the balls were not produced to be lighter, as that would be a self defeating exercise in ball degradation. Doing tests with old wound balata balls is a well known waste of time.

But they didn't seem to note that some of the distance loss in the old balls was probably related to their lighter weight.  Obviously the higher COR of the solid cores in modern balls accounts for a lot of the gain in distance for the modern balls.  But, the spin rates were very similar across the four generations which I think speaks to your desire to go back to what you perceived was a spinnier Tour Balata ball.

Anyone who thinks the spin difference between balata balls and old two piece balls off of driver either has not played both, or couldn't swing hard enough to get the ball out of their shadow.


They also mention that the Tour Balata moved around more.  Given the spin rates were similar, I would attribute some of that to their lighter weight.  You did mention that the "public" rejected lighter balls in the past.  Not sure which "public" that was, but do you suppose that they would embrace a spinnier ball that is more directionally challenged when they didn't like lighter balls that moved around too much?

The amateur public. Top players could play the light ball. The amateurs could not. The regulation lasted one year before being revoked.
http://golfclubatlas.com/in-my-opinion/john-vander-borght-the-balloon-ball/
The public obviously accepted the spinier ball as the wound balata ball was played by the public for decades.



In case you've forgotten, I've seen you play and I know about your directional control issues - even the orange balls were hard to find.  Strangely it never seemed to affect you in handicapped match play. 

Not sure what you mean by the handicapped match play comment. Until the last Buda, my winning percent in Buda and Kings Putter events was always 50% or less. My other well publicized events were against Kalen where no handicap was used as I was the only one with a certified handicap.

Concerning the big slices I was hitting at Bernham and Berrow, it is my contention that if I had been playing a wound balata ball, you would have seen some really wild slices.

[Joe Zucker]

Here is a really interesting academic paper on racquet technology in tennis and how it has impacted which skills succeed and therefore, which players succeed.  I've skimmed a bit of it and there is a lot of parallels to our discussion on golf and how the change in technology has impacted the game. We obviously aren't the only ones thinking about it...


http://individual.utoronto.ca/jhall/documents/TennisTechChange.pdf

[Garland Bayley]

B.B.Liebernann   Science & Golf   1990   pp 225-30
Published spin rates from balata wound balls, and two piece balls. The graph of spin rates were close to parallel as I had hypothesized with slope near 4 of loft vs rps.
The ability to produce multipiece solid balls with a higher slope was demonstrated in the technical literature before such products were produced, thereby leading to ProVs etc.

[Ken Moum]

Lighter balls have already been rejected by the public in a previous ruling attempt. Why would the public now accept a ball that can be blown around by wind even more? Not only would it be blown around by the wind more, my experience with Cayman balls would seem to indicate it would be harder to flight the ball down to avoid the wind.

The problem with the ball from 1930 was that it was too light, especially considering that it was already a had-to-control balata ball.


And the USGA not only lightened, it they made it bigger at the same time.


With today's easier-to-control balls, taking a little weight out could never have the kind effect caused by changing two characteristics at once.


FWIW, I am convinced that with even a little testing, the ruling bodies could arrive at a lighter ball that came close to duplicating the characteristics of balata, at least as far as the power/control equation goes.


The "balloon ball" was 1.55 ounces, compared to 1.62 ounces before and after.  So something like 1.58 or 1.59 might be the sweet spot.


And FWIW, there's a patent out there for a ball that is lighter, and the company that applied for and got the patent claims it would be longer for women and seniors because they could keep it in the air better.


So, as far as your point, if that company is right, and a lighter ball actually helped people with swing speeds under 100 mph, maybe getting a new standard accepted wouldn't be so hard.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

And FWIW, there's a patent out there for a ball that is lighter, and the company that applied for and got the patent claims it would be longer for women and seniors because they could keep it in the air better.

I suspect that if that was accurate, given the size of that market (the seniors, not the women), that there would be a ball like that on the market already. The Rules don't preclude a lighter ball; they simply mandate the heaviest a ball can be.

[Jason Topp]

Because they were sitting all over the course I hit a bunch of floating range balls and regular balls during a twilight nine last week.  The difference was about 25 yards but I needed to hit them on the course in order to be able to perceive a difference in experience.  A good shot felt like a good shot regardless of which ball I hit. 


The floaters were way more susceptible to the wind which I suspect is the reason they were rejected during the short time they were mandated by the rules (maybe in the 20's?).  I think an alternative ball would need to be the weight of regular golf balls in order to be accepted by the public at large. 


I am confident that manufacturers would be able to design a ball that weighs the same as today's ball but flies 25 yards shorter.  I think they have already done that with some test events.  I recall one in Ohio around 10 years ago.   

[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?

Garland,


A thousand rpms is not a drastic reduction.  They stop reasonably, in part, because they hit the ball higher so the landing angle is larger.

One test I read about found a 760 rpm difference, which they stated as being a significantly noticeable difference in stopping. I doubt Brian can find a reference that has data that verifies any of his claims.

[Bryan Izatt]

Garland,


Can you provide a copy of or a link to the Lieberman (not Leibernann) article you reference in post #79.  I am not surprised if it demonstrates  that there are two parallel sloped lines of loft vs spin.  The article appears to be about the effect of grassy lies on spin rate.  Without seeing the whole article it is hard to say whether the data there is in any way comparable to the spin data from the Trackman article.


A link to the article you mention in the post above would be nice too.


For your edification here's a link to a study of u-grooves vs v-grooves that demonstates a small but measurable loss of accuracy with u-grooves that spin around 1000 rpm less.  A 1000 rpm is still not a "drastic" reduction in spin.


https://www.researchgate.net/publication/259923400_The_2010_Regulations_on_Golf_Club_Groove_Design_Impact_on_Ball_Flight_Characteristics_during_a_Controlled_Shot




----------------------------------------------------------




Ken,


A link to that patent application would be nice to see too.




-------------------------------------------------------------




Jason,


Floater balls float because they are lighter (usually around 37 grams rather than 46 grams.  Lighter balls would be more affected by the wind.  If you want a reduced distance ball that is the same weight as the current standard and you want to reduce distance then it would have to have a larger diameter to increase drag.  The larger ball would be more susceptible to the wind than current balls but I suspect would not be as affected as floater balls.


The test in Ohio was in 2006 and it turns out was more of a one ball test rather than a shorter ball test.  The ball chosen was an unmarked Volvik PROsPect ball (a 3 piece urethane ball that was USGA conforming) that all players were required to use.  It was commercially available and there is no indication that it was shorter than any other premium golf balls of the time.

[Garland Bayley]

http://raypenner.com/golf-physics.pdf

Reports the Lieberman article. I don't have a link to the original.
The methodology was to fire balls at an angled surface and measure the resulting spin.
Grooves are totally uninteresting, as the contribute nothing in controlled experiments measuring impact spin. Their purpose is to remove grass and water from the impact.

[Jason Topp]

Thanks Bryan.  Couldn't a shorter ball be developed through sub-optimal dimple patterns or by having the ball bounce less off the club (COR I think but am not sure). 


Neither of those options would seem to make the ball more susceptible to the wind.

[Garland Bayley]

Roh & Lee [4] who
demonstrated differences at 760 rpm, represents enough to see a considerable change in the behaviour of
the ball upon landing.

[4] Roh, W.-J., & Lee, C.-W. (2010). Golf Ball Landing, Bounce and Roll on Turf. In Procedia Engineering 2 (pp. 3237 3242).
Presented at the 8th Conference of the International Sports Engineering Association, Elsevier.

Reported in
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877705813010631

[Bryan Izatt]

Thanks Bryan.  Couldn't a shorter ball be developed through sub-optimal dimple patterns or by having the ball bounce less off the club (COR I think but am not sure). 


Neither of those options would seem to make the ball more susceptible to the wind.

Yes, it should be easy to make the ball a little deader and keep the same weight.  And, it'd be easy to regulate - just lower the inital velocity standard.


Messing with dimples might also work but it'd be a difficult engineering exercise to come up with a design that results in an appropriate reduction of distance.  And, who would do the design and test it?  And having all manufacturers adhere to the same dimple pattern probably wouldn't go down to well with the manufacturers.

[Matthew Essig]

I just watched an interview with Ryan Moore about Augusta, preparation, etc., but for about 90 secs, they talked about the distance issue. What he said might have hit the nail on the head.

He said the ball isn't really "going further". It indirectly is.


He said the problem is that it spins less. The penalty for a mishit is far smaller now for the pros.

He went on to say that the long hitters aren't scared anymore. They just absolutely unleash on the ball now. Between this and the fact that they are bigger, better athletes, the average swing speed is up 4 to 5mph recently.

So, he said if they are gonna roll the ball back, they should make it spin more like it used to.

[Bryan Izatt]

http://raypenner.com/golf-physics.pdf

Reports the Lieberman article. I don't have a link to the original.
The methodology was to fire balls at an angled surface and measure the resulting spin.
Grooves are totally uninteresting, as the contribute nothing in controlled experiments measuring impact spin. Their purpose is to remove grass and water from the impact.

Thanks for the link.  So, you're putting forth second hand information that has no context as proof of your theory. The Lieberman paper is about the effect of grassy vs dry impact conditions on spin-rate. One conclusion was that the spin rate was higher with grassy conditions for lower loft angles (say middle irons down).  Your linked article does not say what the conditions were for the spin-rates provided - was the plate dry or grassy; what ball speed was used.  It was also a lab test firing balls at a angled plate and using high speed photography to capture the spin-rate, so not really similar to tour players hitting actual clubs and using Trackman to get the spin. Never-the-less I don't think theses numbers tell the story you want.


I put the spin-rates for the balata ball and the 2-piece ball on the same chart as the Trackman PGA Tour players as shown below.  You might notice that the 2-piece ball line actually gets closer to the balata ball at the higher lofts.  The lines are not really parallel.


Now, if you look at the PGA Tour modern ball line, it indeed has less spin at the driver loft, but it isn't as low a spin-rate as the old 2-piece ball. 


If I understand you (not likely ), you think the modern ball spun like the old 2-piece ball at driver lofts and like a balata ball at wedge lofts.  Well, the data seems to contradict that - the modern ball actually spins less than the old 2-piece ball at wedge lofts.  Make of it what you will.




As for your last comment about grooves, all I can say is, really?!?!  Grooves contribute nothing to impact spin?    Is this an alternate fact?   

[Bryan Izatt]

Roh & Lee [4] who
demonstrated differences at 760 rpm, represents enough to see a considerable change in the behaviour of
the ball upon landing.

[4] Roh, W.-J., & Lee, C.-W. (2010). Golf Ball Landing, Bounce and Roll on Turf. In Procedia Engineering 2 (pp. 3237 3242).
Presented at the 8th Conference of the International Sports Engineering Association, Elsevier.

Reported in
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877705813010631

The link for Roh and Lee is actually:


https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877705810003929


The other article is interesting as well but is by Corke et al and is about "Clubhead presentation and spin control capability of elite golfers" and includes a reference to the Roh and Lee article.


Roh and Lee were doing a mathematical model of ball behaviour upon landing on a green at different spin rates, with differing firmness of the green and different green speeds.  The difference in spin rate looks more like 600 rpm to me.  The difference in landing outcome depended on the softness of the turf and the speed of the green.  Not surprisingly under different spin and ground conditions the ball might bounce higher or lower, bounce more or less times, and might roll forward or backwards.  They conclude their mathematical model matches pretty well to empirical data. 


In the test cases of their mathematical model that they described, the ball didn't run further than a meter either forward or backward.  So yes, 600 rpm spin-rate difference results in different performance of the ball on landing but it only makes a difference of a yard or two either way.  Is that a considerable change in your book?


The Corke et al article has some interesting stats regarding tests of spin with elite amateur golfers.  The golfers were asked to hit normal 9 iron shots and then try to hit a shot the same distance but with lower spin, and then hit one with higher spin while still controlling the distance.  They were able to lower their spin rates by 1000 rpm with little difference in distance.  They were unable to increase spin rates much compared to their standard shot. 


The interesting point about spin-rates is that the standard deviation from their spin-rates was 600 to 1000 rpm depending on the shot they were trying to hit.  This aligns with my previous comments that 700 rpm is not a huge variation in spin-rate.  These elite amateur golfers varied that much trying to hit the same shot.  It just says to me that spin rate is highly variable and subject to a lot of inputs including the ball, the club and the golfer's swing.  Trying to regulate it would be a fool's errand.

[Bryan Izatt]

I just watched an interview with Ryan Moore about Augusta, preparation, etc., but for about 90 secs, they talked about the distance issue. What he said might have hit the nail on the head.

He said the ball isn't really "going further". It indirectly is.


He said the problem is that it spins less. The penalty for a mishit is far smaller now for the pros.

He went on to say that the long hitters aren't scared anymore. They just absolutely unleash on the ball now. Between this and the fact that they are bigger, better athletes, the average swing speed is up 4 to 5mph recently.

So, he said if they are gonna roll the ball back, they should make it spin more like it used to.

Matthew,


Clearly Ryan Moore has been listening to Garland too much and doesn't really understand the vagaries of trying to roll back the spin-rates to balata days.   

[Matthew Essig]

I just watched an interview with Ryan Moore about Augusta, preparation, etc., but for about 90 secs, they talked about the distance issue. What he said might have hit the nail on the head.

He said the ball isn't really "going further". It indirectly is.


He said the problem is that it spins less. The penalty for a mishit is far smaller now for the pros.

He went on to say that the long hitters aren't scared anymore. They just absolutely unleash on the ball now. Between this and the fact that they are bigger, better athletes, the average swing speed is up 4 to 5mph recently.

So, he said if they are gonna roll the ball back, they should make it spin more like it used to.

Matthew,


Clearly Ryan Moore has been listening to Garland too much and doesn't really understand the vagaries of trying to roll back the spin-rates to balata days.   

I don't think he's old enough to be talking balata balls. He's talking last 10 or so years. 

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Grooves are totally uninteresting, as the contribute nothing in controlled experiments measuring impact spin. Their purpose is to remove grass and water from the impact.

I believe that's only true up to about 25° or so loft (perhaps spin loft, accounting for dynamic loft and AoA). Beyond that the corners/edges of the grooves begin to interact and have an effect on spin.

Regardless, regulating spin is, IMO, nearly a complete non-starter.

Clearly Ryan Moore has been listening to Garland too much and doesn't really understand the vagaries of trying to roll back the spin-rates to balata days.   

Thumbs up.

[Garland Bayley]

As for your last comment about grooves, all I can say is, really?!?!  Grooves contribute nothing to impact spin?    Is this an alternate fact?   

Here is what I based that on. "Many of the differences between the smooth and grooved clubs, including those in the amount of spin applied, are not significant--that is to say they are of a size which would have arisen by chance if, for example, two identical grooved clubs had been used."
Pg. 154, Alasdair Cochran & John Stobbs, The search for the perfect swing

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Here is what I based that on. "Many of the differences between the smooth and grooved clubs, including those in the amount of spin applied, are not significant--that is to say they are of a size which would have arisen by chance if, for example, two identical grooved clubs had been used."
Pg. 154, Alasdair Cochran & John Stobbs, The search for the perfect swing

Garland, time to get some updated information. Particularly on lies in which water and debris can play a role.

[Garland Bayley]

Here is what I based that on. "Many of the differences between the smooth and grooved clubs, including those in the amount of spin applied, are not significant--that is to say they are of a size which would have arisen by chance if, for example, two identical grooved clubs had been used."
Pg. 154, Alasdair Cochran & John Stobbs, The search for the perfect swing

Garland, time to get some updated information. Particularly on lies in which water and debris can play a role.

Erik,

We are talking science here. You know, controlled experiments. If had read the thread, you would have read my statement that grooves are for water and grass to escape so spin can still happen.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

We are talking science here. You know, controlled experiments. If had read the thread, you would have read my statement that grooves are for water and grass to escape so spin can still happen.

Garland, I've got two degrees in the sciences. I know that you're talking about "experiments" but you're wrong that the grooves have no effect - they do, IIRC, above about the loft of a 5-iron, and particularly so on actual playing conditions where golf balls and the striking face are not perfectly clean.

Rolling the ball back by trying to create some spin standard is a complete non-starter. Give it up.

[Garland Bayley]

We are talking science here. You know, controlled experiments. If had read the thread, you would have read my statement that grooves are for water and grass to escape so spin can still happen.

Garland, I've got two degrees in the sciences. I know that you're talking about "experiments" but you're wrong that the grooves have no effect - they do, IIRC, above about the loft of a 5-iron, and particularly so on actual playing conditions where golf balls and the striking face are not perfectly clean.



Rolling the ball back by trying to create some spin standard is a complete non-starter. Give it up.

Tell that to Ryan Moore.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()