The Miracle Bra, er Ball (sorry!)

[NAF]

http://www.golfobserver.com/features/hannigan_usgaball.html

I was wondering around the site and saw this.. Just thought it might be interesting.

[A.G._Crockett]

Interesting! Hannigan's conclusion is perplexing, since the science of the current ball is that the distance gains are greater (on a % basis) at higher swing speeds.  I believe the quote somewhere was that the distance gains are "non-linear."

If the reversals are also non-linear, how is that different?

A better question than whether or not it can be done is whether or not the manufacturers can be legislated into adoption of the technology.  What would be the mechanism?

[Odd_Job]

So the USGA has a big concern that the average player will ignore any effort to limit distance.  I disagree with that.  Players generally take every legal effort to increase distance; and I have rarely seen golfers with an illegal ERC.  I think they will conform as long as they feel in general everyone else is and if there is negative stigmatism if they cheat.

Part of any game is competing within the constraints of the rules.  The satisfaction of hitting a longer drive than your playing partners would be greatly diminished if you were cheating and they were not.

[ian]

A.G._Crockett

"If the reversals are also non-linear, how is that different?"

I totally agree with your point, and that left me stunned.

This may be a window into the problem, this sounds like he's speaking for the longer tour pros, who are without a doubt promoting this percentage cut. They have the advantage now, and don't want to hand it back.

[Doug Siebert]

I don't see why the USGA would be worried that players will "ignore" a new ball standard.  Make it easy to check in some way -- I always recommend making the ball larger, to bring back some of the effect of wind that has been lost with newer balls.

Nothing will stop a guy from stocking up with old style balls and playing them for years, but don't balls go "bad" after a few years sitting around, or was that only true with wound balls?  Even if not, eventually they'll run out, or his buddies will call him on it when they've run out of old balls.  I'm sure there were some stubborn Scots playing the small ball a few years after it was outlawed, but they aren't still.  But I doubt there were many being made after the rule was in force, except as novelties and such.

If it came down just to players wanting an advantage, there'd be a market for illegal balls that go much further than current balls can, and there isn't.  There'd be a market for illegally high-COR drivers (regardless of whether they help or not, some people may think they will if it is "illegal")  But there isn't.

I don't have a problem with it if the USGA can find a way to make distance loss non-linear, so long as it isn't something stupid like you can drive it 270 with a 105 mph swing speed and only 280 with a 135 mph swing speed.  But if every mph gains you two yards up to some level and then starts to only gain you 1.5 yards for a while, then gains you only 1 yard for a while and so on, I'd really not complain.

And as someone who has definitely benefitted from the Pro V1 and V1x, I'd lose under what I'm suggesting.  I don't have a problem with it, it isn't written anywhere that swing speed and distance should have a linear correlation.  Heck, I'd be in favor of it if they could make a ball that went unusually far for people with swing speeds of 75 mph or less.  Let the short knockers and seniors have some fun already!

In a way it'd be fun as an old curmurgeon in 50 years to point to some of the places I hit a V1x to this and tell the young whipper snappers how I drove there once, and they'll laugh and think I'm full of shit because even the longest hitting pro on Tour, Sergio Mickelson-Woods Jr., couldn't get within 30 yards of the spot!

[A.G._Crockett]

Doug,
I am taking everyone's word about the non-linear distance gains on the current ball.  I don't hit a ProVI a bit further than I did a Professional or a Precept or any of the other stuff before the ProVI came out.  I like them because:
     a. they are straighter
     b. they are unbelievably durable
     c. I don't like to buy golf balls, and I find them by the
         bushel on Mondays when the course is closed while my
         son fishes!

Therefore, I assume my swing speed just isn't high enough to take advantage of the technology, even though I'm a decent enough club player.  So I don't think stockpiling illegal balls would be much of an issue, since there wouldn't be any gain for me anyway.

I think they are already making a ball that goes unusually far at low swing speeds;  the Lady, the Noodle, the Laddie, et. al.

It just seemed to me, reading the article, that the USGA was working on the ideal solution; a technology that would reverse the non-linear distance gains for top players, without impacting the great mass of golfers out there, and without the dreaded "bifurcation."  

That's why I was so surprised that Hannigan dismissed it out of hand as a bad idea.  He even gives the example of the unfairness of Mickelson losing 15 yds. while Pavin loses only 5 yds., which is exactly the point!  Mickelson has picked up more yards than Pavin, so if they lose the same amount, we're right back where we started!  You almost get the feeling that Hannigan has a stake in things staying as they are so that he can extend his career as a critic of everything the USGA does.

I may be missing something, but it seems like a great idea, or at least one worth considering and pursuing.

[TEPaul]

"What follows is called a scoop. Pay attention.
The USGA is trying to solve its confounding distance problem by creating a miracle golf ball."
Frank Hannigan. Feb 5, 2004

This is the most interesting part of the article! What Hannigan surmises about how it (a miracle ball) will work and who will get hurt distance-wise and who won't, or who should and who shouldn't get hurt is somewhat confusing!

But again, the most interesting thing is Hannigan thinks he has a 'scoop' here. Perhaps this is a bit conceptual at this point as it seems to me that Frank Hannigan and the USGA probably aren't on the best of terms anyway for a variety of reasons!

I'm somewhat with A.G. Crockett on this one though. I don't know that what's happened with golf ball technology in the last 5-10 years could really be considered "non-linear" for the higher mph swinging long hitter. I think what's happened here with a Mickleson compared to a Pavin is that the manufacturers finally created a golf ball that has the softer feel of the old balata type ball that all good players used to use with the distance characteristics of the old ball that higher handicappers used to use.

Of course the major question is, how much below the ODS line were those old balata type balls all good players used to use compared to the maximum distance balls, the "rocks", that none of them used to use? That stat is becoming much more necessary to know now, in my opinion.

Combine that stat fact with fact that a guy like Pavin probably never did swing the club above 109mph (the old ODS "pass/fail" factor). Everyone says that these new age balls (ProV and ProVxs) do not increase distance for golfers who don't swing at or above 109mph compared to the old rocks!

So what's the real problem here? The real problem is to rollback the distance spike recently enjoyed by ONLY swingers who do have an mph over 109, and to do that obviously one would have to deem non-conforming all these new age balls and their unique new construction specs (and combined distance and soft feel characteristics)!

That might seem like a massive undertaking but it really isn't in a technology sense. The only potential undertaking would be in a legal sense of not getting sued for deeming non-conforming so many balls currently legally on the market.

Frank Hannigan is talking about the USGA (and the manufacturers) trying to come up with some 'alchemy' with a miracle ball. All they really need to do is legislate the differences in performance (soft feel vs hard feel) and the ODS realities of both types of balls we used to have! Would that take a ton of R&D and alchemy? Of course not! It wouldn't take any more than going back to the construction specs before the new age ball came into being! That doesn't take any R&D at all!

The only difference today would be the USGA/R&A didn't have any distinct specs and rules and regs for those two types of performance balls and now they would!! Frankly, that would be incredibly simple and inexpensive technologically. But legally it's probably a different matter.

We don't really need some miracle ball, all we need is to return to the performance and ODS characteristics of the way things were about 10 years ago and legislate specifics rules and regs for it!

If the boards of the USGA and R&A had just listened to what Frank Thomas was warning about around ten years ago we wouldn't need to be going through this exercise now. So the idea is to just look back on both when and why things got out of hand and return to it with rules and regs that prevent what happened in the last 10 years from happening again!

And the odd reality of all this is nobody who swings below 109mph which is the vast majority of golfers is going to get hurt distance-wise at all! That's providing, of course, that they're all willing to return to the hard feel characteristics of the old rocks that always were up on the 27 year old ODS line. The good players and long hitters will be doing just what they used to do---give up some maximum distance to return to the soft feel of the old "control" ball they ALL used to use!

This shouldn't be looked at in some "miracle ball" sense--it should be looked at in the "you just can't have your cake and eat it too" sense! That's the way it always was with the two distinct performance elements of "control" vs "maximum distance" and who used which and that's the way it should be again.

The problem arose when the manufacturers finally combined those two distinct performance elements into one type golf ball--the so-called "new age" ball (ProV and ProVx type). Again, deem that type of ball and its construction characteristics non-conforming and we'll be back where we want to be which worked just fine in practice for decades!!

If that were done I'd dare say this whole new supplemental distance enhancing phenomenon of "optimization" would be rendered uneffective as well!

[Steve Lang]

 

Miracle ball... hah!

Come on boys, just a little math, its all just like ballistic calculations with bows and arrows or whatever your choice of weapons,.. but with focus on the transfer of momentum from a clubhead to golf ball.  

It is physics that determines most of what the golf ball will do the moment it takes off in flight.. let’s not forget the centers of mass of our instruments being perfectly matched for the mere mortal golfers versus the instruments of the best pros, a fact that must have considerable influence in this distance debate..  And why shouldn’t they try to perfect their tools?  Titleist has apparently done it for Ernie and Phil, perhaps because they are most machine like and regular in their swings..  

The club head speed and mass determines the momentum transfer that can occur to the ball sittlng at rest and the upwards and outwards lines of travel (forces) and the speed at which the ball flies off.

This is all due to the conservation of momentum :

(before impact)    MassClub x VelocityClub + MassBall x VelocityBall = MC’VC’ + MB’VB’  (after impact)

So, since momentum is always conserved with some real world losses taking some additional tolls (like COR), as the mass of the club or its velocity is increased, the velocity after impact of the ball must increase..  So if you can perfect that up vs out distribution of forces, and how the ball reacts across its makeup, you can send your little rockets off to ultimate or exact distances or heights..  

This is the real argument for customizing each and every club, or any professional's equipment..  the ball isn't the only issue

[TEPaul]

Steve:

The ball isn't the only issue but the ball can be most of the answer to the recent distance issue! Bring back the maximum distance hard ball and the less than maximum distance soft ball just like we used to have before this "composite new age ball" (combining soft feel with the maximum distance ball) and we'll be back to almost where we were. Why didn't that soft ball all the pros used to use go as far as the hard ball most everybody BUT pros and good players used to use? I'm no physcist but I think it was because it's spin rate off of any launch angle driver was higher than something like the ProV and ProVx. It's spin rate may have even been a lot higher!

[Paul_Turner]

I suspect the USGA is looking at a significantly lighter ball (20-30%).   This would impact the tour pro's distance far more than the average player's.

At first glance (from Momentum) you might think that a lighter ball would go further.  But the aerodynamic forces-lift and drag-increase significantly and the ball will travel less far... a higher, shorter trajectory.

[TEPaul]

Paul;

Just a lighter ball isn't gonna cut it! The question is--will it float? The new USGA on-site tournament golf ball testing apparatus needs to be incredibly sophisticated, like their new on-site COR tournament testing apparatus! How much do you think it'll cost them to R&D and make a bucket of water for the first tee of USGA tournaments? Do you think they can produce that before 2008? They might have to rush and pour millions into perfecting it but I think they can do it!  

[Doug Siebert]

A.G. Crockett,

Whether you'd be affected by a new ball standard or not would depend on how it was defined.  If it simply cut 10% off the numbers used to do the measurements, you'd lose 10%, as would the steroid popping long drive guys who hit it 400 yards and the little old lady down the street.  If they can work something out to make the distance loss non linear, you might be hurt less (percentage wise) than those of us who have been benefitting from the newer stuff.


TEPaul,

I personally don't believe the balata balls were below the ODS standard by even one yard.  Why in the heck would they be?  They knew how to make illegal balls that were (as far as I could tell for the few times I hit one a long time ago) conforming as far as size, weight, etc.  They just had a super-ball center or something.

So if there was something about a balata cover that made a ball go shorter, they could make up for it with a livelier center.  I can bear this out in my experience too, as I played the Tour Balata for years, but also played various random surlyn covered wound and two piece rocks during that time.  I'd play those on hazard laden holes or when I wasn't playing well -- when you are in college or still paying off those college loans, you worry more about the $3 ball than the penalty strokes

Anyway, as far as I could tell, there wasn't really any difference between a Tour Balata and a Top Flight, as far as carry distance off the driver in still conditions.  The difference was that the Tour Balatas had a different trajectory, and didn't roll much at all.  That's why so many of us switched to 6 or 7 degree drivers, trying to get that damn spinny thing to roll more than five yards.  With short irons I could hit the rocks a little further in the air thanks to the flatter trajectory.  There may have been a few yards difference off the tee and in the other irons, I'm not consistent enough to measure that exactly.  But it certainly wasn't anything even remotely close to the difference I could see say between the Professional and the Pro V1x off the tee.

When I switched from the Tour Balata to the Professional it wasn't because I was gaining any distance (other than a bit of roll) it was because it wouldn't be useless after one thin shot or tree/cart path impact, but still was acceptable to me around the greens (though nothing quite duplicates the feel and control of those Tour Balatas around the greens, I miss that!)  Some pros even switched to it because they wanted less backspin.  The Pro V1 was another step in durability, up to the "you can play it forever, until you lose it" category, so even if it didn't offer the other advantages it did, I would have switched.


As far as the "floating ball".  A much lighter ball is something I'd be all in favor of, bring the wind more back into the game, if it fixes the non linear distance increases, all the better.  But you don't need to make it float in plain water, it could be a particular salt water solution.  Still almost as easy to test, if they don't want to go all the way to making it float in fresh water.  My quick mental calculation indications they'd need to make it weigh about 1/3 less to make it float on plain water.

[Rick Shefchik]

Hannigan: "...it's beyond astonishing that the community of golf would fall for a scam which inevitably leads to using more real estate at greater cost because of the enormous influence of the PGA Tour. New back tees are being built everywhere, not just at courses serving as big money sites, but where no championships will ever be played. The ego can't tolerate one's course becoming a toy."

I play at lots of courses where no championships (except for club championships, and, every few years, some state events or qualifiers) will ever be played, and nobody is turning them into toys.

Hannigan is right that the current balls primarily benefit the tour pros, but good amateurs are hitting the ball farther, too. What they're not doing any better is scoring from 100 yards and in. The new balls/drivers don't make up the short-game gap, where the pros are truly superior. All the more reason why most courses should forget about lenghthening until one out of every four players is walking off the 18th green with a score in the 60s. That ain't happening.

[Doug Siebert]

Rick,

You don't get it.  The challenge of the course is still diminished if you hit a wedge into every par 4.  That's true even if you are averaging exactly the same score as before because your wedges aren't all that great and even when you get them close you miss the putt.

Let's all say it together -- its not about the scoring!

[Tommy Williamsen]

By the way, I hate the miracle bra more than the miracle ball.  It reveals less than it pretends to show.

[TEPaul]

"TEPaul,
I personally don't believe the balata balls were below the ODS standard by even one yard."

Rick:

Again, I'm no scientist but I do. And in my opinion that's something that needs to be revealed or determined and revealed.

Why would they be? Probably because of their construction and spin rate! There's certainly no question they were far more effected by temperature than the two piece hard ball.

Do you remember the trajectories of some of those balata balls when hit by someone like a Nicklaus or Davis Love? They'd take of on a flat trajectory for a while and then rise dramatically. That's not a prescription for maximum distance by today's thinking. Have you seen these tour pros hit this new age ball with a driver? They have a trajectory something like a 300 yard wedge!! They get high right off the face and keep rising!

I wish I could find that technical ball and impliment characteristic website I saw a few months ago. My recollection is that was their reasoning why some of these new age balls are going so much farther today off drivers.

[A.G._Crockett]

Doug
Does that mean that you used a balata ball off the tee in a scramble back in the day?  If you did, you are the only person I've run across who believed that a Titliest Tour Balata and a Pinnacle were the same off the tee.  Even the tour guys used different balls on different holes until the one ball rule was adopted back in the early 70's, didn't they?

[Jim_Kennedy]

TEPaul,
You can get your head to spinning at this site or go to the Titleist site for something a bit less technical:
http://www.smcm.edu/nsm/physics/SMP03S/WarringK.pdf

..but basically you're right, the balata ball spun too much and when initial velocity started to wear off other factors took over causing the ball to balloon. The construction types and dimple patterns of new balls are producing various and mostly lower spin rates. Optimization is matching head speed, swing arc, loft and shaft geometry to a particular spin rate that produces the most distance/favored trajectory for the best players.      

[Doug Siebert]

A.G. Crockett,

No I used a Top Flight or similar in a scramble, for two reasons.  One, I said balata balls CARRIED as far as rocks off the driver for me, not that they ended up the same distance.  Those rocks could roll, unless it was really wet, which is why you were out there another 10 or 20 yards when you hit one in conditions that allowed a halfway decent roll.  Plus, in a scramble I'm usually driving last, and if there's already a good one out there, I'm really going after my tee shot.  If I didn't catch it right though, there was no telling where it was going (still true today), so I didn't want to waste a good ball.  In a scramble, after all, I could tee off with a Top Flight and hit my approach with a balata

It still amazes me that they were able to give us the roll that those rocks used to get off the tee, without giving us the roll those rocks used to get on the green.  Sure, the V1 and V1x don't stop quite as quickly as the Tour Balata did, but I've always relied on sheer height for my stopping power, I've never been one to get much suck back action.  The drop 'n stop stuff fit perfectly into the game I was already playing.


TEPaul,

Yup you were exactly right about the trajectory of the balata, which is why they were so much trouble into the wind.  That, and not raw distance, was the big revelation for me with the Pro V1.

I remember the first time I hit one high off the face into a 20 mph wind and was amazed to find I was about 275 yards down the fairway.  I'd always teed it a bit lower and tried to control the trajectory into the wind, if I hit one like that with a balata I'd get more like 235 out of it.  I thought it was a fluke, until I kept doing that.  Combine that with the fact that hitting a slight curveball into the wind with the V1 didn't mean you had to play your second from the next fairway over, made for a huge change in the way the game was played.  And would have been even if the Pro V1 didn't add distance -- and I didn't figure it was all that much of a gain -- it took the Pro V1x to really amaze me distance wise in the way the V1 had amazed me into the wind-wise.

[Rick Shefchik]

Doug Siebert --

Actually, I do get it. I've posted here many times in favor of a competition ball, or a rollback in the ODS. I'm just not in favor of lengthening courses. I'd rather fix the golf ball than the golf course.