Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture Discussion Group => Topic started by: Andrew Brown on October 17, 2009, 05:58:10 AM
-
The thread regarding the Road Hole makes me write this (BTW, I've parred it, so it isn't that hard ;D)
Whilst I am a golfer & golf fan who cares passionately about the problems due to increased ball distance due to both balls & clubs, I agree with the idea of a ball rollback / equipment standards rollback to «save» the game of golf.
We all know that the cry to «Roll back the ball» is a little too simple in regards to what is the reality.
Isn't one of the real reasons that the ruling bodies would be opposed in litigation by the affected equipment companies?
It would cost a lot, with a very real risk of losing. What would be the end result for golf then?
Willy Uilhein's take on what it will take for the ruling bodies to gain control over the ball;
John Huggan:
What can the rules makers do that would not provoke litigation?
Willy Uihlein:
You would have to go in and buy up all the patents and put them into the public domain so that everyone can practice them on a paid-up license. Then, whatever specification changes they came up with, no one would have any legal downside consequences. That’s the reality. And that is the element of the discourse that has never been acknowledged by anyone in the media.
This is not about private sector versus public sector. It is not about private sector versus regulatory bodies. When you roll it back, it will not only prejudice the performance of the players, it will also prejudice the patent portfolios of one company over another.
We are dealing with multi-million dollar investments. So it’s not just about the sensibilities of those who profess to care about the game and them questioning why we wouldn’t support that view. It’s not that simple. It’s almost like it is beyond our control. When I get into a court—and they have little to do with truth, justice, and reason—they are 80 percent about theater. It comes down to who has the best trial lawyer.
Unless the regulatory bodies are prepared to create a super-fund, buy up all those patents, and tell us all what balls we can make, nothing is going to change.
I know there are tests ongoing with the USGA regarding a reduction in the distance of the ball (Ulhein refers to it in his interview), but what are the chances it will eventuate?
The equipment companies are not going to roll back the ball «for the good of the game». I think that's a given.
What is the real future of golf regarding equipment? Will a compromise be reached? Or will the status quo continue?
Opinions anyone?
Regards
Andrew Brown
Moss, Norway.
-
I've never really understood the litigation arguments and perhaps some lawyer on this site will be able to help me. If the R&A and there American counterparts simply said that to play in our competitions from now on you have to play with a club/ball meeting the following criteria, what hold to the manufacturers have over them ? After all its their tournaments they can do what they like, can't they ? For instance it is standard etiquette that there is a dress code at most clubs if not stated explicitly in the tournament rules. Most dress codes preclude jeans yet as far as I know Levi's or Wrangler have yet to issue a lawsuit ?
On another tack having to conform to the new rules could actually produce a lot of market opportunity as manufacturers race to provide the best conforming ball/equipment. Clearly the market leaders aren't going to be too chuffed but should a company be allowed to hold a competitive advantage by threat of litigation ?
Niall
-
Andrew,
I participated in a joint USGA/R&A ball test at my club this summer. They had us play with a throttled-down ball. They took a large number of measurements, had us hit 3 tee shots with launch monitors, and spent at least 30 minutes with every group in a post-round interview.
They also had us spend time on the practice range doing detailed real-world comparisons between the range balls and the "new" throttled down ball.
Distance was definitely more affected on the longer clubs... My 8 iron was only 2 yards shorter, my driver about 12.
The distance "control" was due to a dimple pattern that increased drag.
To me, the ball felt like an old Titleist Pro-Trajectory ball. I really liked it. (The ball was actually built by Bridgestone, but the USGA told me that they had models from all major companies).
Honestly, I have no idea what they'll do with the data, but I hope we see a change in the future.
------------
That said, there were a couple of testers that thought the idea was stupid and we should be able to hit the ball as far as we can. I'd guess their opinion is shared by many others, and the difficulty of the ball roll-back is probably selling the idea to the public.
--------
PS - Let me know if you want more details on the ball testing...
-
My guess on the litigation is that companies have spent a ton of dough on R&D/patents for balls that are currently allowed. Changing the rules without grandfathering in the current equipment will instantly wipe out any value for those patents. Just a guess.
I just don't think there is that much left to be gained in technology.....there has to be a point of diminishing returns, right? With the COR on the driver and the physical limits of the materials used on balls, I can't imagine we're too far away. I just don't believe 8000 yard courses will be the norm.
Then again, Bill Gates did say that 256k would be enough memory for anyone's computer ;D
-
"I've never really understood the litigation arguments and perhaps some lawyer on this site will be able to help me. If the R&A and there American counterparts simply said that to play in our competitions from now on you have to play with a club/ball meeting the following criteria, what hold to the manufacturers have over them ? After all its their tournaments they can do what they like, can't they ?"
Niall:
There are numerous threads in the back pages that go into all this stuff in minute detail and in a real way nothing much has changed since.
Regarding your questions above; sure the USGA/R&A could say that to play in their tournaments golf balls have to conform to X but the larger problem could be what if the manufacturers just decided to massively market non-conforming balls anyway and the public essentially just bought them as they buy conforming balls today? If that happened in many ways the USGA/R&A who monitor and control and write I&B Rules and Regs for golf around the world would be essentially irrelevent.
For instance, the USGA also says to post a score for handicap purposes a golfer must use conforming equipment and balls.
As far as an effective lawsuit from any manufacturer it has always been my belief that the USGA and R&A would never really lose a lawsuit (a manufacturer as the plaintiff and the USGA/R&A as the defendant) because the USGA/R&A could always use the defense that their I&B Rules and Regs are basically VOLUNTARY but then again if they used that defense there is nothing standing between the manufacturers just marketing a ton of nonconforming balls and equipment and the point, again, is, if the public buys USGA/R&A I&B non-conforming equipment en masse essentially the USGA/R&A will become largely irrelevent with I&B in the larger world of golf.
-
In another twenty years [or maybe ten] Wally Uilhein's opinion will be irrelevant and so will the USGA's.
All the balls will be designed and made in China, and they won't care what anybody else tells them, as long as the balls sell over here.
-
TomD:
Believe me, if the current ball manufacturers think the Chinese are about to massively market nonconforming balls they will definitely beat the Chinese by marketing nonconforming balls themselves! Do you really expect all the non-Chinese ball manufacturers around the world to sit around and wait to completely lose their market share because they feel some moral responsibility to the USGA/R&A's to voluntary conform to their I&B Rules and Regs? ;)
The NIKE Co was internally talking about prospect of massively marketing nonconforming I&B over five years ago. A Northwest reporter got wind of that internal NIKE discussion and wrote about it in some small Northwest publication. I called her and talked to her about it. At the time she didn't seem to completely understand the larger implications for golf. Afterwards she said NIKE denied what she had reported.
-
Tom P
The fact that NIKE didn't go ahead with the non conforming ball tells me that they knew fine well that there would be no market for it if the average club golfer couldn't tee it up in a medal. Which takes me back to my original point, what business is it of the golf manufacturers to say to the R&A and the USGA, and by extension the golf clubs which would almost certainly fall in line, that if my equipment is not allowed in your tournaments which you run then we'll sue. Just can't see the legal argument.
Tom D
I don't doubt that China is going to become a huge market and will continue to be the main manufacturer of golfing equipment, as I believe they are already, but if they want to sell stuff over hear it has to be what the market over here wants. And that is where I am saying the USGA and the R&A have the upper hand as they can hugely influence consumer choice by controlling the rules of competition. It may be they will develop there own market and golfing culture with their own rules which I think would be a great shame but the others might disagree.
Niall
-
Tom Paul,
I once worked for Nike, and at one time they would have definitely sold non-conforming equipment. But they really blew their initial foray into European Football - they ignored its traditions and tried the "we're here to blow your minds" method.
Nike failed horribly, and learned some valuable lessons - namely to push the envelope but respect the game.
Today, they're one of the top soccer brands in the world.
PS - China already makes the vast majority of stuff you play.
-
The lead in rolling back the ball will IMO be ANGC, they have the power to specify what players can use in their event. There could be a sponsor led boycott but golf needs the Masters more than ANGC. The R&A split the members club from the guv'nor of the game to remove member's personal liaiblity.
-
"Which takes me back to my original point, what business is it of the golf manufacturers to say to the R&A and the USGA, and by extension the golf clubs which would almost certainly fall in line, that if my equipment is not allowed in your tournaments which you run then we'll sue. Just can't see the legal argument."
Niall:
That is a very good point and I believe that is precisely why you have not seen and probably never will see the two I&B regulatory bodies (USGA or R&A) ever have much of any comment on what any manufacturer is doing other than to formally deem any ball or piece of equipment nonconforming if it does not pass various very well known Rules and Regs. It is also why various formal procedures have been developed by the USGA/R&A such as their "Notice and Comment" periods as well as their common procedure of assigning quite long duration times for equipment previous conforming to be "grandfathered out" if it is ever deemed non-conforming (such as U grooves are about to be). The whole idea is to very much limit the grounds that any manufacturer might legally use to sue the USGA/R&A which in almost every case has been or would be "Restraint of Trade."
-
Andrew,
After the calendar year 2010 Tour season is in the books I think you will be see driving distance stats closer to those of the middle to late 90s, between '96 and '99.
edit: not the 'longest' but the mean. In 2009 the mean was ca. 287, in 1999 it was 272. I think we'll see 2010's mean under 280, closer to the 1999 figure.
-
Jim,
Why?
-
Dan,
I am really happy that the USGA and R & A conducted such testing this summer. That is incredibly encouraging, as is the fact that several ball manufacturers have samples ready. I have been praying for a ball roll back for years, so maybe there is hope.
Have there been any public comments from the USGA or the R & A about this testing?
-
I frankly don't understand the restraint of trade arguments, etc. The USGA operates as an independent body from the manufacturers. They should have every right to set the rules as they see fit, as long as they don't intentionally favor one manufacturer over another. If the USGA were to announce today that the ball would have certain limits, I don't understand how the manufacturers could fight it and win. Yes, I understand that courts make bad and very bad decisions. Naively it just seems that the USGA should have the right to set the rules of the game. Plain and simple, isn't it?
My related thought is if baseball were to decide that aluminum bats were now to be allowed, would the wooden bat manufacturers have a case? I would hope and think not. It is up to baseball to decide its rules, not the manufacturers. So be it with golf.
-
"Dan,
I am really happy that the USGA and R & A conducted such testing this summer. That is incredibly encouraging, as is the fact that several ball manufacturers have samples ready. I have been praying for a ball roll back for years, so maybe there is hope.
Have there been any public comments from the USGA or the R & A about this testing?"
BillB:
This has all been ongoing since 2002 when the USGA announced their app $10 mil. program to study as many facets of ball technology as possible. Part of it involved calling for all ball manufacturers to submit "prototype" balls that would go '15 AND 25 yards less far' for the USGA to study (as far as I can tell all ball manufacturers agreed to develop and submit to the USGA those asked for "prototype" balls). The first stage was to study them in the lab (the USGA's tech facility) and following that the next stage was to test them with real golfers which Dan Hermann and his club was part of.
Of course what follows from here will be interesting to watch and follow! ;)
Obviously, one of the most logical and appropriate questions would be those "prototype" balls go '15 AND 25 yards' less far than WHAT? I would assume it would be 15 AND 25 yards less far than the present ODS conforming standard! (app. 300 yards at the USGA ODS protocol of 120-122MPH swing speed).
If in fact those "prototype" balls became the new USGA/R&A "conforming" ODS requirement for golf balls it would be, in effect, a distance rollback from what we have now!
-
My guess on the litigation is that companies have spent a ton of dough on R&D/patents for balls that are currently allowed. Changing the rules without grandfathering in the current equipment will instantly wipe out any value for those patents. Just a guess.
While that seems to be the standard position, I can't understand why it's true for a ball that costs anywhere from a buck to about $4 retail, but it's not true of $500 drivers or $125 wedges.
And it's even more odd when you consider that the balls have extremely short lifespans, and the clubs can last decades. Not only that, but the manufacturers like to claim that their balls are new and better EVERY year... so we need to buy the newest ones.
Maybe that's the answer. The OEMs don't mind the USGA making clubs obsolete via the rules as they just get to sell more new ones. But the balls they've been telling us are'nt really new and better, and the don't want us to find out.
Ken
-
By the way - one really nice thing I found during the USGA/R&A testing was that the rolled-back ball affected high swing speeds much more than slow swing speeds.
My wife Laura (shoots in the 90s) has a driver swing speed of around 70MPH. She noticed absolutely no difference in distance, and preferred the feel of the rolled-back ball.
Guys up over 105MPH were seeing tee shots reduced by 10-20 yards and 8-irons by about 3-5 yards.
-
Andrew,
After the calendar year 2010 Tour season is in the books I think you will be see driving distance stats closer to those of the middle to late 90s, between '96 and '99.
edit: not the 'longest' but the mean. In 2009 the mean was ca. 287, in 1999 it was 272. I think we'll see 2010's mean under 280, closer to the 1999 figure.
because they're all hitting 3 woods
-
Dan,
New, softer balls will have an impact on driving distance and as Jeff pointed out, more three woods for better control as you won't want to be hitting shots from the rough to firm and fast greens with early '80s spin.
Part ball + part equipment = good start.
kmoum,
Golf balls have long lifespans. No one wants a 5-year old driver but they'll buy 5 year old golf balls out of the used bin. Acushnet makes a significant profit on its golf ball sales, clubs are a distant second.
-
Andrew thanks for starting this. I posted the full interview here a couple of weeks and was amazed when it got no responses.
Wally Uilheim
http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,41624.msg883477/
There’s another old thread that I think is relevant.
If a competition ball was adopted by local rule the old balls would still be legal for the 95% of golf rounds played (not sure about the US handicap situation).
Something very similar applies in the game squash. Because the best squash players use a very slow ball, nearly all players adopt this ball even though it puts them at a disadvantage. I.e. Golfers would want to buy the rolled back ball BY THEIR OWN FREE WILL - so sue me for that. All manufactures would have access to this market, but Wally really is the Elephant in the room as he has the most to lose – currently 40% market share.
Squash Ball
http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php?PHPSESSID=4p6v1e5p57osutgga1fijk1b95&topic=21535.0
-
Tony:
The situation with the squash ball is the same as it was for the British vs. American golf balls in the 1970's and early 80's. Once the R & A made the "small ball" illegal for the Open and Amateur Championships [so American players wouldn't have to adjust to the smaller ball when they came over for the Open], all of the best players in Britain switched to the 1.68-in ball full-time. And then THEY were the ones who started insisting the big ball become standard for other amateur events, club events, etc. The better players dragged the average players along with them. From my experience, that change was worth about 25 yards off the tee to most players.
Tom P:
I don't think the balance of power in the manufacturing world is very well understood here. As Dan says, nearly all of the equipment you play is already made in China. It was an engineer with one of the equipment companies who suggested to me that it won't be long before the Chinese control the entire process. And once the switch is complete, do you believe that some British or American company is going to manufacture a ball which sells for twice as much (because they won't be as efficient at making it, and won't be making it in the same high volume) in the hope that Americans will buy it to preserve the game as it is?
If you do think so, then check around your house and tell me how much American- or European-made stuff you can find. Hint: don't bother to look at anything which is electronic.
-
TomD:
Interesting remarks you made about the golf ball manufacturing world. I must admit I haven't followed it that closely in recent years. I can certainly understand if a lot of product is actually made in China (lower labor costs) but aren't the companies making it still the non-Chinese companies most all of us have known for years? I'd think there would be a big difference in perspective with USGA/R&A I&B conformance depending on whether a ball manufacturing company is Chinese compared to a non-Chinese company that just manufactures in China to lower their manufacturing costs.
-
Tom:
The manufacturing is in China, and so is most of the engineering now. My friend said in ten years the only connection to America will be the executives like Wally U., and when that's the case, it won't be long before they do to him the same thing they did to Mr. RCA.
-
"By the way - one really nice thing I found during the USGA/R&A testing was that the rolled-back ball affected high swing speeds much more than slow swing speeds.
My wife Laura (shoots in the 90s) has a driver swing speed of around 70MPH. She noticed absolutely no difference in distance, and preferred the feel of the rolled-back ball.
Guys up over 105MPH were seeing tee shots reduced by 10-20 yards and 8-irons by about 3-5 yards."
Dan:
First of all, I very much doubt you will see anyone from the USGA in any position of authority referring to these new "prototype" balls that reputedly were designed to go 15 AND 25 yards less far as a "rolled back" ball. While they obviously are in effect that they have gone to lengths to explain those balls were only called for to better understand the physics and characteristics of golf ball technology; essentially to get on the same R&D curve as the manufacturers.
In effect though I think this whole thing really is an attempt to fly it all way under the radar screen and that what you said about the difference in distance affect between say Laura and a golfer with a swing speed of 105mph plus is the truth!! ;)
We will know it's the truth if the trajectories (particularly with a driver) by the high swing speed players is a return to that old low to high trajectory of the high swing speed players with those higher spinning softer balls all the good players used to use up until about the mid-1990s.
-
Tom P:
I don't think the balance of power in the manufacturing world is very well understood here. As Dan says, nearly all of the equipment you play is already made in China. It was an engineer with one of the equipment companies who suggested to me that it won't be long before the Chinese control the entire process. And once the switch is complete, do you believe that some British or American company is going to manufacture a ball which sells for twice as much (because they won't be as efficient at making it, and won't be making it in the same high volume) in the hope that Americans will buy it to preserve the game as it is?
If you do think so, then check around your house and tell me how much American- or European-made stuff you can find. Hint: don't bother to look at anything which is electronic.
Tom
I don't follow the point you're making. Yes China is doing all the manufacturing but they are doing it to a spec which is determined by the rules of golf, and the rules of golf are determined by the R&A and the USGA. When you look round your house and see all those Taiwanese and Chinese elctrical items I bet they all conform to the legal requirements for goods sold in the USA. Just because the Chinese/Taiwanese manufacturer can build a fridge/freezer to another design which would be cheaper to build and therefore give more profits, they can't do that and sell it in the US unless it meets US regs. The power that the R&A and USGA have is that of the regulator.
Niall
-
I don't follow the point you're making. Yes China is doing all the manufacturing but they are doing it to a spec which is determined by the rules of golf, and the rules of golf are determined by the R&A and the USGA. When you look round your house and see all those Taiwanese and Chinese elctrical items I bet they all conform to the legal requirements for goods sold in the USA. Just because the Chinese/Taiwanese manufacturer can build a fridge/freezer to another design which would be cheaper to build and therefore give more profits, they can't do that and sell it in the US unless it meets US regs. The power that the R&A and USGA have is that of the regulator.
Niall
Niall,
This isn't quite correct. A ball manufacturer in China will manufacture to the specs determined by their CUSTOMER, not the USGA/R&A. The electrical items analogy doesn't work because there are import laws and and product liability concerns, neither of which would be the case with golf balls.
But the most telling part is the statement "The power that the R&A and USGA have is that of the regulator." The governing bodies have no formal power, except over competitions that THEY sponsor; the vast, vast majority of rounds of golf played worldwide are NOT under their "power", except to the extent that golfers wish to go along with their rules.
I have no date or info to support this, but I have always assumed that among the many reasons that the rule-making bodies (as distinguished from governing bodies) haven't changed the ball is because they don't want to lose the spirit of voluntary compliance that now is the norm.
-
I have no date or info to support this, but I have always assumed that among the many reasons that the rule-making bodies (as distinguished from governing bodies) haven't changed the ball is because they don't want to lose the spirit of voluntary compliance that now is the norm.
They're nothing without it.
-
I just don't think there is that much left to be gained in technology.....there has to be a point of diminishing returns, right? With the COR on the driver and the physical limits of the materials used on balls, I can't imagine we're too far away.
No offense Clint, but this reminds me of a quote from Charles Duell, who headed up the US Patent Office in 1899. He said that the patent office will soon close because everything that can be invented has been invented.
I am guessing that there are still lots of things that could be found - revolutionary types of materials that we have not yet invented that will have a significant impact on distances.
-
We will know it's the truth if the trajectories (particularly with a driver) by the high swing speed players is a return to that old low to high trajectory of the high swing speed players with those higher spinning softer balls all the good players used to use up until about the mid-1990s.
I don't think you'll see the trajectory you're looking for from the present day batch of drivers. Persimmon woods had small heads and a high center of gravity and so did the early generation of metalwoods. The super size driver of today is so much different than that, as you well know.
You might see something similar to that trajectory if they continue to hit strong-lofted 3 woods, whose weighting is more in-line with that of the older driver.
-
I just don't think there is that much left to be gained in technology.....there has to be a point of diminishing returns, right? With the COR on the driver and the physical limits of the materials used on balls, I can't imagine we're too far away.
No offense Clint, but this reminds me of a quote from Charles Duell, who headed up the US Patent Office in 1899. He said that the patent office will soon close because everything that can be invented has been invented.
I am guessing that there are still lots of things that could be found - revolutionary types of materials that we have not yet invented that will have a significant impact on distances.
Wayne
I agree with you. That said, I just don't care how far flat bellies hit the ball. If those that have the power in the big wig clubs didn't care they wouldn't alter their courses. Its a great pity they do care because I believe length race is two horse race and the clubs are one of the horses. If they told the R&A and USGA to suck scissors all those years ago things would be very different now. The bottom line is that if we are going to allow what amounts to a very small number of players influence how we build courses than we deserve what we get. IMO, it wouldn't matter if a rollback happened. Clubs would still want to make changes to their courses. At the moment the USGA etc are a convenient scapegoat for thoughtless stupidity.
Ciao
-
I've said it before, but I might as well repeat myself.
I find plenty of challenge on the golf course. I fail to see how rolling back a golf ball will save the game of golf from me. Should the USGA and R&A decide that I need to start hitting a marshmallow because a very small percentage of golfers are hitting the ball too far, then I will ignore the USGA and R&A and continue to hit the ball I want to hit.
Regardless if it is subject to litigation (I think the USGA/R&A would lose such litigation), is it really fair to equipment manufacturers who have spent a fortune developing balls to fit within the USGA/R&A specs to suddenly have those specs change? Why not a more gradual change, similar to the R&A's gradual change to the larger American ball?
And to those that think it is fair that this new ball only hurts people with fast swing speed, is it really fair the talent they have developed should be the only skill adversely affected? For competition, wouldn't it be fair if the ball affected all players equally?
Cheers,
Dan King
It consists in pitting little balls into little holes with instruments ill adapted to the purpose.
--Horace Hutchinson
-
Dan:
I totally agree with you that any change in the ball would require giving the manufacturers several years' notice so they won't waste money on R & D for a ball that is illegal when it's ready for production.
However, that's one of the conundrums of this discussion ... if the governing bodies agreed the change had to be made, and gave the manufacturers fair notice, they would just fight the new rule tooth and nail in the press and then three years later say they hadn't had enough time to retool because they didn't think the change would stick. (That was their approach on the grooves change, anyway.)
But, I still think any change in the ball could easily be made over time, just by making the new spec. ball required for the Open and Amateur Championships, and then letting peer pressure take over from there. But the Tour would probably have to be on board, too, and they're resistant to the idea because the players are all in the manufacturers' pockets.
-
I don't see the introduction of dimple patterns designed to reduce drag, as a viable proposition. It's this one of the areas where manufacturers spend so much on research? This is what makes one manufacturers' ball better than another's. It's what drives the competition, generates business and revenues. The game needs ball research. I believe the simplest way to tackle this issue is for the R&A/USGA to increase the minimum weight of the ball. Manufacturers could continue to spend millions of developing the outer cores and cover of the ball.
Dan:
Yes, the majority of golfers find the game challenging enough and feel that the ball issue is not relevant to their own game. I myself have not noticed much of a difference in my game. I may hit the ball a bit further, but I still score as I did 20 years ago. But it can affect you indirectly. As someone who appreciates golf course architecture, you will be familiar with many classic design courses that have been altered so that they are able to "defend" their par. We all wish to play "genuine" McKenzie, Raynor, Ross, Colt etc. courses, but it's becoming less and less a possibility these days. Their creations are being slowly (or very quickly in many cases) destroyed.
I would accept that professional golfers have improved over the years. They are now fitter, stronger and can now be considered athletes. But give them a persimmon driver and an old balata and you will then see what a difference the current equipment makes. They have benefited greatly from the improvements in ball and equipment. Amateurs have also benefited, but not to the same extent as the professionals, and this is probably due to fitness etc. A new ball would affect everyone, but I don't think amateurs would see a huge difference.
Tom/Dan:
A gradual change is the only way, but you're not going to see a situation where both balls (if a new ball is the solution) balls are played, as was the case with the large (US) and small (GB) balls. The gradual change that is needed is in the hearts and minds of manufacturers, R&A/USGA, amateurs and professionals, and architects. I don't mind if it takes 10 years, but a decision needs to be made now.
Dónal.
-
Dónal
Time is a very serious concern, but perhaps the current world financial climate has given the time you mention, however, this is not something new. This problem of length or distance the ball travels has been around for years and years.
Serious action is needed or do we see all our old courses (anything pre-2000) being either rebuilt or modified (land permitting). Time is now short, the day of 36 holes in a day are numbered. Do we allow the ‘powers that be’ to continue to dither while our own costs go up to cover the course modifications because no one is willing to take a firm stance on the matter.
The game has ceased to be consistent. We can no longer give credence to a new course records due to the fact that it is either equipment generated or on a newly modified course. The official records (even our own cherished old scorecards) of 10, 20, 30 years ago are meaningless, tomorrow you may go out and beat your previous record, but did you achieve that or was it just down to the improvement in your equipment.
Are we reaching the stage that a handful of golfers (highly able and fit) are going to minimise our courses because of the inaction of our Lords and Masters in Golf.
Are we getting back to the good old days when golf was only for the rich who could afford the latest equipment i.e. the highly technical Feathery Ball etc. We may, because they will be the only ones able to pay the Green Fees with all these possible course changes, not to mention the latest equipment. Carts will soon be mandatory to allow the golfer to complete a round in daylight due to the ever expanding length of our courses – no, they will not be ours, we may have paid for the modifications but they will be owned by the wealthy.
Stupid scenario, God I hope so but who knows, yet by fast and serious action all could be resolved and we give back to the game the very thing that has been lost but sorely needed ‘Consistency’ of course and equipment.
The upside is that we keep all our great courses, to retain the great designs and allow the soul of the game some peace.
Melvyn
-
I just don't think there is that much left to be gained in technology.....there has to be a point of diminishing returns, right? With the COR on the driver and the physical limits of the materials used on balls, I can't imagine we're too far away.
No offense Clint, but this reminds me of a quote from Charles Duell, who headed up the US Patent Office in 1899. He said that the patent office will soon close because everything that can be invented has been invented.
I am guessing that there are still lots of things that could be found - revolutionary types of materials that we have not yet invented that will have a significant impact on distances.
Distance is already limited! It's the relationship between spin and max distance that has been improved on over the years. Pre-Pro V1, the only way to have a ball go max distance (The maximum velocity of the ball may not exceed 250 feet per second (76 m/s) under test conditions ) was to hit a ball that didn't spin much. The ProV1 increases the distance of a high spinning ball. There is a point of diminishing returns, you'll have a ball that goes max distance and spins too much eventually. I don't have USGA data in front of me, but I think the ProV is nearly there today.
-
I've said it before, but I might as well repeat myself.
I find plenty of challenge on the golf course. I fail to see how rolling back a golf ball will save the game of golf from me. Should the USGA and R&A decide that I need to start hitting a marshmallow because a very small percentage of golfers are hitting the ball too far, then I will ignore the USGA and R&A and continue to hit the ball I want to hit.
Regardless if it is subject to litigation (I think the USGA/R&A would lose such litigation), is it really fair to equipment manufacturers who have spent a fortune developing balls to fit within the USGA/R&A specs to suddenly have those specs change? Why not a more gradual change, similar to the R&A's gradual change to the larger American ball?
And to those that think it is fair that this new ball only hurts people with fast swing speed, is it really fair the talent they have developed should be the only skill adversely affected? For competition, wouldn't it be fair if the ball affected all players equally?
Cheers,
Dan King
It consists in pitting little balls into little holes with instruments ill adapted to the purpose.
--Horace Hutchinson
Dan, I agree on all points 100%. I doubt there are 2 people on this board who have made any course "obsolete". The problem, IMO, lies with clubs that think they need to be 7500 yards when they'll never, ever hold a Tour event. Compound that with the idea of "protecting par" and you have a mess.
-
Tom Doak,
I think it's just a matter of time, a few years is too short, but 10 or 15 isn't. Ping had 15 years of grandfathering, and a bifurcation of the rules now exists for the modern wedges, and again, there is a 10 year grace period for amateur play.
What the USGA has to have, as they did with Ping, is an exact set of parameters so there can be little or no confusion at the time the change is enacted.
If the USGA had a few events over the 10 year period where they required a rolled back ball it could 'test' to see if everyone was more or less headed in the same direction.
-
I don't follow the point you're making. Yes China is doing all the manufacturing but they are doing it to a spec which is determined by the rules of golf, and the rules of golf are determined by the R&A and the USGA. When you look round your house and see all those Taiwanese and Chinese elctrical items I bet they all conform to the legal requirements for goods sold in the USA. Just because the Chinese/Taiwanese manufacturer can build a fridge/freezer to another design which would be cheaper to build and therefore give more profits, they can't do that and sell it in the US unless it meets US regs. The power that the R&A and USGA have is that of the regulator.
Niall
Niall,
This isn't quite correct. A ball manufacturer in China will manufacture to the specs determined by their CUSTOMER, not the USGA/R&A. The electrical items analogy doesn't work because there are import laws and and product liability concerns, neither of which would be the case with golf balls.
But the most telling part is the statement "The power that the R&A and USGA have is that of the regulator." The governing bodies have no formal power, except over competitions that THEY sponsor; the vast, vast majority of rounds of golf played worldwide are NOT under their "power", except to the extent that golfers wish to go along with their rules.
I have no date or info to support this, but I have always assumed that among the many reasons that the rule-making bodies (as distinguished from governing bodies) haven't changed the ball is because they don't want to lose the spirit of voluntary compliance that now is the norm.
AG
From my previous posts you will see that I was postulating that the R&A/USGA have the power because clubs and golfers largely conform to their rules. Witness the number of illegal drivers a few years back that golf shops couldn't give away. If they sold them it was usually to some beginner who didn't understand what they were being sold.
You are right that it is market driven. But it is a market that the R&A/USGA create or at least help define at the boundaries because of the rules on equipment that they define.
Following my last post I was doing my weekly drive from Glasgow to Elgin with not much to think about this and came to the conclusion that the reason that the authorities don't outlaw the existing equipment to rein in distance etc, is not because they don't think they would win any court case but more because they know they couldn't afford to lose (or possibly even fight a case which could take years against a number of wealthy multi-nationals). Can't really balme them when I think about it like that.
Niall
-
The logical first step would be that the professional Tours start rolling back the ball. Have the Tour Pros hit it shorter, that will save those classic courses that are used by the Tours. And I fail to see any litigation there, as there is no market selling balls to Tour Pros.
Once we have a Tour ball, let's see where to take it from there.
Rolling back the ball for amateurs is probably unnecessary. And it may even be uncomfortable: suppose your buddy, who always drives it 240 down the middle, now has to play with the rolled back ball and still drives it 240 down the middle, while you lose 15 yards on your drive. What would you think? That your buddy has the better golf swing or that he has, perhaps, bought a crate of illegal balls that were re-labelled in Hongkong?
Illegal drivers are one thing, not many will be able to get one and they are much harder to transform into something legal. But golf balls? They're going to make millions in China and just label them whatever they please. For this reason I think the ball will not be made illegal, until every local club has the means to determine a given ball's legality on the spot.
I kinda liked the suggestion that the only restriction on golf balls should be that they have to float in water. How about your competitor challenging you to prove your ball's legality by dropping it in the water hazard? :)
Ulrich
-
I kinda liked the suggestion that the only restriction on golf balls should be that they have to float in water. How about your competitor challenging you to prove your ball's legality by dropping it in the water hazard? :)
Ulrich
Perfect, at last a valid reason for water on the links!
Weight would be the quickest and easiest test and it can be done without touching on any of the patents Wally is so quick to threaten us with.
I'm still waiting for a lawyer to comment on the whole restraint of trade issue. Would there be a real case or is it just like the end of Bonfire of the Vanities where the protagonist faces an endless limbo in the courts.
-
Weight would be the quickest and easiest test and it can be done without touching on any of the patents Wally is so quick to threaten us with.
Any significant change in the density or size of the golf ball would render useless the majority of those patents and a fair bit of the detailed, applied research behind them. It's fine for us to pooh-pooh the claims of those patent-holders but, no joke, there is some quite subtle development work behind the differences in a ProV1 and a 1995-vintage Titliest Professional. Make the ball bigger/smaller, lighter/heavier and all that work has to be done anew.
-
Brent,
In 1901, I had a patent for a great horseshoe changer. It quickly became worthless because of changes.
Times change all the time, and formerly valuable patents become worthless.
000000000
I played the "new" ball, and found it to be a lot of fun. Sure - there are a number of players that'd scream, but I'd say ignore them. The USGA/R&A should grow some b*lls and act now!
-
Dan, et al:
Has anyone bothered to check the overall distance figures of the PGA Tour -- the gains (i.e. from the doom and gloom prophets) are just not there.
A.G., is right -- voluntary compliance is a big part of the issue for the bodies like USGA & R&A.
Jeff W -- certain people on tour may be using three-metals but the bulk are still using the bit stick. Those using the three-metals are doing so for better percentage for fairways they can hit. Just check the distance stats and see what it means.
Guys:
The issue of distance often gets distorted in a big time way because a very small handful of people bust it big time. This is no different than Hootie and the gang that could not shoot straight overdoing it when Lefty hits a PW into the 11th and Hootie freaks out to create the dog of a hole you see now.
-
Matt -check out http://www.pgatour.com/r/stats/2007/101.html
1980 - longest driver of the ball was Dan Pohl - 274 yards
1990 - longest driver of the ball was Dan Purtzer - 279 yards
2007 - longest driver of the ball was Bubba Watson - 315 yards
In 2007, a guy with an average distance of 274 was in 188th place!
-
Dan:
Check out the spread in distance since the ProVI balls were introduced into the market place -- the last 3-4 years. I'm not arguing about stats from 30 years ago -- those were balls far different than the models seen now.
Check out also the median distance -- not just throwing forward the top guy like Bubba Watson. If anything the distance element on the PGA Tour has really slowed down to next to nothing in terms of any continued significant yardage increase. Frank Thomas, the former USGA equipment guru, has said no less and the stats I've seen have demonstrated that to me.
Like I said before -- the folks at ANGC over-reacted big time to the distance debate. They see one or two guys hit the ball big on a few holes and they decide to blow up the design and come forward with hideous holes.
-
People have been imploring the USGA and the R&A for decades to roll back the ball. Believe it or not, I found an article by the famous golf writer O.B. Keeler, in which he made the argument that the "modern golf ball" had to be adjusted to prevent the inexorable march to 7,000 yard golf courses. He wrote this in 1928! I think that it's very, very unlikely that anything will be done to take away the "improvements" to the golf ball. I think we just have to accept that the professionals play a much different game and that the older courses are going to be changed if they hope to keep hosting professional tournaments.
-
Matt,
The last 3-4 years? Have you been lost in a time warp? The ProV1 was introduced in the fall of 2000.
From 1995 until 2005 the median average distance for the top 50 drivers on the PGA Tour increased over 27 yards.
In the past few years driving distances have not increased and in some cases have very slightly decreased, but this should be expected given that the players have so outgrown the courses. Almost everyone has scaled back their game, because they can't even hit their drivers any more on many holes where driver used to be a necessity. What used to be long par 5'sare now reachable with a good three wood and a mid iron.
-
Dan
How can you get away with saying the following
000000000
I played the "new" ball, and found it to be a lot of fun. Sure - there are a number of players that'd scream, but I'd say ignore them. The USGA/R&A should grow some b*lls and act now!
And I can’t because people with no b*lls complain about my tone. ;)
Melvyn
PS Its never too late, unless you are dead.
-
In the past few years driving distances have not increased and in some cases have very slightly decreased, but this should be expected given that the players have so outgrown the courses. Almost everyone has scaled back their game, because they can't even hit their drivers any more on many holes where driver used to be a necessity. What used to be long par 5'sare now reachable with a good three wood and a mid iron.
That's an interesting conclusion.I have no proof,but I think it makes sense.
Is there now a higher percentage of 3-woods used on measured holes?
Where's Pat Burke when you need him?
-
For the record here is the trend on PGA Tour driving distances, both average and longest, and the delta between the longest and the shortest. Things have definitely flattened out since the Pro V1 surge of 2000.
For those who want to roll back the ball, do you understand the costs involved; the disruption of the transition; and the engineering difficulty in finding a way to roll back the ball that is fair and equitable and testable and enforceable. All in the interests of protecting a few classic courses from "desecration" by their ownership/membership to withstand the improved play and resultant battering of par that the best in the world could inflict.
Better to cap at the current distance and hope that owners/membership of classic courses don't do any more silly things with their courses.
(http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee260/350dtm/PGATourAvgDistance2009.jpg)
-
:)
-
Has anyone bothered to check the average distance for the 15 handicapper? Why must we always revert back to what pros do when we are trying to justify an argument?
The same people who complain about distance go out and buy big drivers and hot balls. I have said it before, the power lies with the consumer. It always has and always will. When the average Joe figures out the distance deal is a scam and acts accordingly is when distance will be a non-issue.
Oh, btw, what are we saving golf from?
Ciao
-
JME
I've no hard proof either, but it make sense to me as well. It has become so common for the Pros to hit three woods off tees that the announcers don't even bother to mention it. Some of these guys seem to have more distance kept in reserve than I've got total.
_______________________________________
Sometimes it takes anecdotes to put things in perspective. Remember when a story of a 350+ yard drive was a wild fairy tale or an anomaly because of the conditions? It wasn't that long ago. For all of 1992 on the PGA Tour only one player managed to get lucky enough to hit it farther than 350 yards. (Mark Calcavecchia, 372 yards.)
I cannot tell you how many have hit it farther than 350 so far this year, because drives under 356 yards don't even make the list of long drives But so far this year on the tour so far, there have been 995 drives of 356 yards or more.
How common have these monster drives become, so common that the above stat does not even do it justice. These drives are so bunched up that their are bound to be hundreds more if we could drop the minimum down just a few yards, and thousands more if we could drop the minimum yardage down a just a few dozen, to around 340 yards.
Don't believe me? So far this year there have been around 164 drives which measured from 356 to 358 yards.
This is insanity.
_____________________________________________
Bryan,
I understand those costs, and I don't give a damn about many of them. I am concerned with the game and the courses and they not the game and they don't give a damn about the courses. Golf isn't about making life easy for the equipment manufacturers, so they can endlessly turn profits.
Do those who want to do nothing or even cap the thing here understand the costs involved? New equipment every year or two to keep up, longer courses, longer rounds, a half dozen tees to build and maintain on every hole, great courses destroyed, courses with no room to expand becoming obsolete and possibly failing, traditional strategic options being rendered obsolete not only by the increased distances but also by the growing gaps in distance between long and short, attrition caused by boredom with 5+ hour rounds, increasing reputation damage and public relations problems for a game that already uses an inordinate amount of natural resources relative to the number of participants. And many more.
________________________
Tony, you are correct. I apologize. I'll delete it.
-
Has anyone bothered to check the average distance for the 15 handicapper? Why must we always revert back to what pros do when we are trying to justify an argument?
The same people who complain about distance go out and buy big drivers and hot balls. I have said it before, the power lies with the consumer. It always has and always will. When the average Joe figures out the distance deal is a scam and acts accordingly is when distance will be a non-issue.
Oh, btw, what are we saving golf from?
Ciao
Sean, I've tried to look at the distances for the 15 handicapper and I don't think that the technology has benefited him much, if at all. It is all about swing speed.
But Sean, your suggesting this as if it indicates that there is no real problem, whereas I see it as the root of the problem. There is a growing gap between the shorter hitter and the longer hitter to the point that we do not fit on the same courses any more. And that screws up the architecture. How can courses remain fun and challenging for golfers when some of them hit it 200 yards, and some of them can blast it out there past 350?
How can a short hitting 3 handicapper and a bomber three handicapper ever even play a match from the same tee? If the tee fits the bomber, the shorter hitter might never be able to put a ball in play. If a tee fits the short hitter, the bomber may be hitting mid iron's off of every tee. That does not make for enjoyable golf or good golf courses for either the bomber or the short hitter.
Golf isn't the stock market where supply and demand will take care of everything (not even the stock market is the stock market.) It is a game, and games have rules to create a certain competitive balance. But when those rules don't keep up with technology the game suffers and the balance of the game is thrown off. We cannot afford to have to build all of our courses over again as we did after the Feathery, or to redo them all as we did with the advent of the Haskell.
Speaking of which, those changes were minor compared to this one. For one thing, we have had a huge yardage increase. For another, with those changes everyone benefited from the technology, where now it is only the longest players. So we not only have to make our courses much longer for the longest players, we have to make them flexible beyond the ability of most designers.
-
Sean,
The PGA Tour distances are readily available, those of 15 handicappers are not. I think the average driving distance of a 15 handicapper would be irrelevant, even if it were available. Too much variation about the mean. I expect that any gains would be lost in the noise. I agree that the distance thing is a scam for the vast majority of us, but, I don't expect people to come to their senses any time soon. Is it really true that you can't buy game? ???
David,
It's kind of overkill to blame all those things solely on the ball, don't you think. Do you really believe that they would all stop being issues if the ball were only rolled back 12 yards. (assuming that that could even be done engineering-wise).
-
My real fear is that the great game of golf could end up looking like bowling - a game where he with the best technology usually either wins or comes darn close.
-
DMoriarty,the percentage of 3-woods used on measured holes would help answer a lot of questions,IMO.
As example,some players would be more likely to hit 3-wood on a dogleg left hole,almost irrespective of distance,just to avoid trying to "turn over" a driver.Some guys play with 3-woods built to play as more accurate drivers;trading a little distance for a lot of accuracy.
I don't know how you'd ever find out absent polling the players.
-
Do you really believe that they would all stop being issues if the ball were only rolled back 12 yards. (assuming that that could even be done engineering-wise).
No I think the crusaders would move on to banning long shafts, then large clubheads, then grooves on clubfaces, then eating protein bars, then working out in gyms, then taking lessons with video and eventually Lasik surgery. Then when the game still wasn't played exactly as it was when they were 15 years old they'd get so made they'd just shit in their pants. Then they would give up and go pester some other game.
-
The driving distance for players at the mean was 261 yards in 1989, in 2000 it was 273 yards, about 1 yard per season over 12 seasons.
Then the driving distance for players at the mean shot up by a 7 yard jump in 2001, to 280 yards, and it stayed at that yardage for 2002.
There was one more quick jump in the yardage for players at the mean and that was in 2003 when it shot up about another 7 yards to 286.6 yards. Over the last six seasons it hasn't budged from that mark.
-
David,
It's kind of overkill to blame all those things solely on the ball, don't you think. Do you really believe that they would all stop being issues if the ball were only rolled back 12 yards. (assuming that that could even be done engineering-wise).
Bryan, aren't most or all of those things already happening as a result in (or reaction to) changes in the distances some people hit the golf ball? Seen many new 6000 courses lately? Seen many new courses with two or three tee boxes?
Why would they only roll the ball back 12 yards? Roll it back to where it was before this nonsense started. Those that weren't helped on the way up won't necessarily be hurt on the way down.
___________________________________________
Brent, why not do away with equipment regulations at all? I'll bet with a small air compressor and a pipe I can revolutionize the game.
___________________________
Jim,
That is the ProV1 and the ProV1x talking.
_____________________
JME, I've never seen that stat kept but I'd sure like to.
-
Tony
Check your messages
Niall
-
As I always point out in this recurring discussion, if you want Tiger Woods to hit the ball like they did "before this nonsense started" you're either going to have to make them play a Cayman ball or you're going to have to also change a lot of stuff beside the ball. An additional 30mph of clubhead speed plus better mechanics isn't something you can take away easily. And if you make everyone play a ball that Tiger hits no further than Jack was hitting it in 1970 then the rest of us aren't going to be able to hit out of our own shadow.
P.S. And by the way, if "they" were to force the Tour players to play an 80's vintage Titleist Tour Balata and "they" make all current technology golf balls non-conforming, I'll gladly go back to playing Top-Flite two-piecers. Just don't pretend it's going to make tomorrow's players not hit it any harder than the heros of your youth.
-
David
Nothing of the game is lost on me when I play a well designed 6000 yarder. In fact, this sort is my ideal course. I have fun and look forward to the next time, otherwise I wouldn't pay the green fee. If a pro can't enjoy that its no skin off my nose. The thing is to ignore the pros. Make them come round rather than accommodate them, but I guess that takes too much cahones from the best players of clubs. So far as I am concerned the root of the problem is club members with egos. They would rather their course be altered than to fall out of the limelight. If they stand pat, their course won't be changed. Nobody in the world can force a club to make changes except club members. If enough clubs stand pat, the USGA may take notice. All of you have tried petitioning the USGA with logic. Isn't it time we all take matters into our hands? That is what reasonable minded people tend to do, but then its easier to sit on our asses (and stand in line for the latest and greatest piece of shit that is obsolete before the season ends) and blame the USGA then to do anything sensible. This is when you find out who really cares about the distance issue. When I see a guy whinging about distance after he whips out a driver as big as a log and takes an almighty swat at the latest hum dinger - I don't take any notice. Hypocrites are a dime a dozen. When the consumer cares enough to change his behaviour, that is when real change about distance will happen. Until then, its all clap trap.
Ciao
-
As I always point out in this recurring discussion, if you want Tiger Woods to hit the ball like they did "before this nonsense started" you're either going to have to make them play a Cayman ball or you're going to have to also change a lot of stuff beside the ball. An additional 30mph of clubhead speed plus better mechanics isn't something you can take away easily. And if you make everyone play a ball that Tiger hits no further than Jack was hitting it in 1970 then the rest of us aren't going to be able to hit out of our own shadow.
P.S. And by the way, if "they" were to force the Tour players to play an 80's vintage Titleist Tour Balata and "they" make all current technology golf balls non-conforming, I'll gladly go back to playing Top-Flite two-piecers. Just don't pretend it's going to make tomorrow's players not hit it any harder than the heros of your youth.
Brent, you seem to be approaching this on more of an emotional level than rational. The heros of my youth weren't golfers. The equipment has changed a lot in the past decade or so. Surely considering whether or not this has had a negative impact on the game is not such a bad thing, is it. What does it matter to you if Tiger Woods only hits it 300 with a good poke instead of 360? He'll still win. So why not at least push it back far enough to stop the changes to the courses?
-
So why not at least push it back far enough to stop the changes to the courses?
Because that is way, way, way, way far back. And it will be farther back still another decade hence.
And I wasn't being rhetorical in saying they could start playing 80's style golf balls on the Tour for all I care. Within reason, I am all for "rolling back" golf ball performance to what the USGA pretended to limit it to while their head was in the sand for a decade. If you are proposing to place an actual limit, enforced by a meaningful spec and testing regimen that retroactively halts golf ball progress circa 1990 I do not object.
But I'm pointing out that it will not restore driving distances to their 1990 level, nor will it do more than temporarily slow down modification of golf courses to longer and longer lengths nor will it foreclose on the increases in distance (and height and spin and control and consistency) that the next generation of players will achieve. And the generation after that.
For decades upon decades treating golf as an athletic endeavor and training golfers as athletes was not widespread. It is now and the majority of the stuff you decry comes from factors other than the ball. So I keep repeating, you're going to have to "roll back" the ball to something ridiculous if you want to see PGA Tour events on 6,400 yard courses again.
-
So why not at least push it back far enough to stop the changes to the courses?
Because that is way, way, way, way far back. And it will be farther back still another decade hence.
And I wasn't being rhetorical in saying they could start playing 80's style golf balls on the Tour for all I care. Within reason, I am all for "rolling back" golf ball performance to what the USGA pretended to limit it to while their head was in the sand for a decade. If you are proposing to place an actual limit, enforced by a meaningful spec and testing regimen that retroactively halts golf ball progress circa 1990 I do not object.
But I'm pointing out that it will not restore driving distances to their 1990 level, nor will it do more than temporarily slow down modification of golf courses to longer and longer lengths nor will it foreclose on the increases in distance (and height and spin and control and consistency) that the next generation of players will achieve. And the generation after that.
For decades upon decades treating golf as an athletic endeavor and training golfers as athletes was not widespread. It is now and the majority of the stuff you decry comes from factors other than the ball. So I keep repeating, you're going to have to "roll back" the ball to something ridiculous if you want to see PGA Tour events on 6,400 yard courses again.
Brent surely training makes a difference but the jumps in distance directly correspond to the advances of technology, particularly ball technology. See Jim Kennedy's post above. In fact if you go back and look tournament by tournament you can see the huge bump that some players received from the ProV1 or ProV1x. Here is a chart I did a few years ago of the players who switched to the ProV1x in 2003. It shows the yardage they gained in that single year.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/Misc/gain-in-2003.jpg)
This was no gradual change as the result of hard work, this was a huge boost because of changing equipment. Recall Ernie Els, who switched before the Kapalua Tournament (before most had switched.) He was like a different player, driving it well beyond where anyone had in previous tournaments and well beyond the competition. (Come to think of it, that probably shows up on his 2002 average, so the difference for him should probably be a little larger.)
And note that players without a high swing speed received little or less benefit.
-
And for my final comment...the same comment. I have no objection to lopping five percent or ten percent or thirteen-point-seven percent off the ODS. Whatever you suppose would make it right is fine by me. But it won't stop the lengthening of golf courses.
P.S. Just to state my own interest in golf ball design, let me say this. When I started playing golf in the early 1990's a slow swing speed hacker like me had little choice but to play hard as a rock two-piece Surlyn golf balls and just live with the fact that they chipped and putting like crap. All I've gotten out of the decade and a half of progress is that I can now play a ball that is as much fun around the greens as the balls the Tour players use but it doesn't veer off into the next ZIP code when sliced, fall out of the air after 90 yards or get destroyed when I hit a thin shot. And it goes just as far (in the air at least) as those old rocks. So when the revolution comes, I'll miss being able to eat my cake and have it too but I can play with rocks just like I used to if that's the deal. Pity it would have to come about because some people can't stand to see the elite 1% of golfers hitting it way, way, way past them instead of just way past then as they did a couple decades back.
-
And for my final comment...the same comment. I have no objection to lopping five percent or ten percent or thirteen-point-seven percent off the ODS. Whatever you suppose would make it right is fine by me. But it won't stop the lengthening of golf courses.
P.S. Just to state my own interest in golf ball design, let me say this. When I started playing golf in the early 1990's a slow swing speed hacker like me had little choice but to play hard as a rock two-piece Surlyn golf balls and just live with the fact that they chipped and putting like crap. All I've gotten out of the decade and a half of progress is that I can now play a ball that is as much fun around the greens as the balls the Tour players use but it doesn't veer off into the next ZIP code when sliced, fall out of the air after 90 yards or get destroyed when I hit a thin shot. And it goes just as far (in the air at least) as those old rocks. So when the revolution comes, I'll miss being able to eat my cake and have it too but I can play with rocks just like I used to if that's the deal. Pity it would have to come about because some people can't stand to see the elite 1% of golfers hitting it way, way, way past them instead of just way past then as they did a couple decades back.
Again, I don't think this is about ego or reminiscing of days of yore. It is about protecting the courses and making them viable for those that hit the ball different distances.
And I doubt it will return to the Rock Flite days. If the USGA thinks it through (a big if) they could very easily limit or roll back the ball so that those like us with out 125 mph swing speeds would not be adversely impacted at all. They could even through a bone to the manufacturers by giving them some wiggle room and incentive to bring up those at the bottom a bit while lowering the top a bit. Think of a teeter totter as the top goes down a bit must necessarily come up. If the fulcrum is properly set, then same necessarily applies to rates of distance increase/decrease per change in club velocity.
-
Brent,
No worries, nothing anyone does to rein in the Pros will have much effect on the rest of the golf world, all 99.5 % of it.
-
Out of curiosity, is there a single person on this board who truly believes they hit the ball too far and it has made the game too easy for them? I find it baffling that there is always so much sturm and drang on here about an issue that really only involves the tiniest of slivers of all golfers.
-
Andy,
Not me. I'm still waiting for all those gains. ;)
-
Andy,
Not me either, but this isn't about me. It is about the golf courses.
Even though the changes haven't had much impact on many of us, they have impacted enough so that many of our great old courses are being changed and many of our new courses are over-sized monstrosities from the beginning. Many courses can no longer reasonably accommodate a long hitter and short hitter, at least not from the same tee. These are serious problems for golf design and therefor golf.
-
Out of curiosity, is there a single person on this board who truly believes they hit the ball too far and it has made the game too easy for them? I find it baffling that there is always so much sturm and drang on here about an issue that really only involves the tiniest of slivers of all golfers.
Perhaps not, but this issue has impacts far beyond what you suggest:
I compete in local interclub competitions with 13 other clubs, many of which were built in the 1920's and have classic designs. 8 of the 14 have significantly lengthened their courses in the last 10 years. Four of the other courses already play in excess of 7200 yards. I cannot imagine how much money has been spent on those renovations.
I compete in a tournament in Iowa at a 6800 yard course that used to be considered a good test of golf, not overly stern but a challenge for a top level player. Two years ago, a member of my foursome drove a 370 yard green with about a 10 mph tailwind. No top competitor hits more than a pitching wedge for any approach on a par four unless something seriously went wrong off the tee. The only time one sees a mid to long iron played by a contender is for second shots on par fives and tee shots on par threes.
Any new course that wants to challenge a top flight player while still being playable for the rest of us, now probably needs to build a 7500 yard course. Such courses typically involve much longer walks to get around the course - increasing the time it takes to play, discouraging the health and experiential benefits of walking because the walk is more difficult and increase the expense of the game because of the additional land involved in such a course.
For another perspective, here is William Flynn's description of an ideal test of golf quoted in the Linc Rhoden Interview on this site http://golfclubatlas.com/feature-interview/lincoln-roden-december-2001
"Linc: When Flynn designed an 18 hole course, he designed it to require the full range of shot values. Every shot provided a challenge, and Flynn mixed the challenges to provide great variety during the round. During the course of the round Flynn challenged the good player to hit a very wide yet specific range of shots, his standards of play. His greatest and perhaps unique strength was to design 18 holes from the viewpoint of encompassing the full range of shot values for the good player, while providing an enjoyable experience for the less-skilled player. To quote Flynn:
‘Getting back to the average good course it does seem that from 6,200 to 6,600 yards should suffice for length.
‘Dividing this up into holes there would be say four short holes ranging from the mashie to the full wood shot.
‘One real three-shotter, not merely a hole somewhere over 500 yards.
‘Two drive and full wood shot holes, one with a big carry on the drive as the premium with an easy entrance to the green, the other with accuracy on the drive but with the premium on a big carry for the second shot.
‘One drive and high spoon shot, accuracy off tee and carry to the green.
‘One drive and full cleek shot to narrow entrance and slightly terraced green.
‘One drive and high midiron carry to green.
‘Two drive and full midiron run to green with narrow entrance.
‘One drive and high mashie iron carry to green.
‘One drive and mashie to narrow entrance.
‘One drive and mashie all carry to green.
‘One drive and mashie niblic to island green.
‘One drive and run up on narrow terraced green straight away.
‘One drive and runup, elbow or cape type, with premium on length of drive.
‘ The above list is not at all arbitrary but covers generally the possibilities in an eighteen hole layout.’
The above was written in 1927, while Huntingdon Valley was under construction. In the same articles Flynn notes that the US Open was played that year on a course of 7000 yards! It was Oakmont. He indicated championship courses would be over 6600 yards. In the writings I have seen, he did not provide any changes in shot values for a ‘championship’ course from those listed above."
In that interview, Rhoden does an interesting comparison between the shots Flynn envisioned,Hogan in 1948 and the shots now required at Huntington Valley by our own Jim Sullivan:
Hole 1928 Hogan 1948 Sullivan 1999
C1.401 Drive, 3 Iron Drive, 7 Iron 3 Iron, 8 Iron
C2. 420 Drive, Full Wood 3 Wood, 4 Wood 3 Iron, 4 Iron
C3. 557 Drive, 3 Wood, Pitch Drive, 3 Wood Drive, 5 Iron
C4. 213 Full Wood 4 Wood 3 Iron
C5. 381 Drive, 5 Iron Drive, 8 Iron 3 Iron, 8 Iron
C6. 191 High Spoon 3 Iron 6 Iron
C7. 435 Drive, Cleek Drive, 4 Iron Drive, 8 Iron
C8. 412 Drive, Wood Drive, 6 Iron Drive, 9 Iron
C9. 431 Drive, Full Wood Drive, 4 Iron Drive, 7 Iron C
Of course - this data is prior to the [edit] 5% distance gain that was achieved between 1999 and 2001 further increasing the disparity.
-
I also find it somewhat absurd that at age 52 I hit the ball much further than I did 20 years ago. I realize that it's my increased conditioning and flexibility from my adult-onset fitness program :P. Yes, these distance gains are incrementally small compared to the best players in the world, but any rollback would also cause my sorry game less loss of distance as well. And that way, the Links Trust would not need to bastardize the Road Hole by building a new tee.
-
David, rather than it not having impacted 'many of us', I suspect it might be more accurate to say it hasn't effected any of us though I may be wrong about that.
If the great old courses don't want to change, then they shouldn't change. If Merion has a treasure on their hands they are either fools for ruining it for 4 days of Open golf every 25 years, or they feel it is worth it. Same for new courses. While I have no idea how many new courses are over-sized or even exactly what that means, I suspect almost all have no real reason to be so. If a new oversized course is built to 7400 yards, how many people are going to play it from there vs 6700 or 6400; and worse, isn't the % that need to be at 7400 to be challenged so tiny that they should almost be ignored?
-
Jason:
Nice story about the dude hitting the drive 370 -- just for the sake of info -- what did he score that day. Was it a tap-in eagle?
Or did the guy three-jack and walk away with a standard par ?
Thanks ...
-
David, rather than it not having impacted 'many of us', I suspect it might be more accurate to say it hasn't effected any of us though I may be wrong about that.
If the great old courses don't want to change, then they shouldn't change. If Merion has a treasure on their hands they are either fools for ruining it for 4 days of Open golf every 25 years, or they feel it is worth it. Same for new courses. While I have no idea how many new courses are over-sized or even exactly what that means, I suspect almost all have no real reason to be so. If a new oversized course is built to 7400 yards, how many people are going to play it from there vs 6700 or 6400; and worse, isn't the % that need to be at 7400 to be challenged so tiny that they should almost be ignored?
Because clubs (and public courses) thrive when they have top quality amateurs at their course. In order to attract such players a course needs to be long enough to warrant use to prep for state level competition.
My course is widely considered a great test of golf for players of any ability, but it is a 6600 yard par 70 course. The best players do not have any desire to join (even temporarily while Hazeltine gasses its fairways and greens).
Courses are not lengthening due to some macho instinct. I believe they are doing so because it is necessary to thrive in a tough environment.
-
Jason:
Nice story about the dude hitting the drive 370 -- just for the sake of info -- what did he score that day. Was it a tap-in eagle?
Or did the guy three-jack and walk away with a standard par ?
Thanks ...
I believe he shot 70. He made birdie on the hole after two putting from 20 feet.
As I have discussed on the other thread, score is irrelevant to this issue for me. What is important is that a course require a variety of interesting shots. He hit drivers/half wedges all day. If he would have been required to hit a variety of shots and shot 55, I would view that as a wonderful development. If he would have shot 80 after hitting drivers/half wedges on every hole, the same problem exists.
-
Jason:
You're missing my point.
People can mention all the horror storis about unchecked distance but the issue certainly involved what people do shoot and how they are able to control shots when hitting for such distance.
The change in the grooves will certainly add a bit more equity to the matter at-hand because with a lack of spin control the advantages gained for certain players will be minimized by its impact.
Let me also point out the idea that EVERY one is reducing courses to the kind of driver / wedge elements you mentioned is also a big time stretch. Like I said before -- people see one guy do something and ergo the fish story then becomes much bigger.
In regards to the other point -- if a club believes they need to VALIDATE their standing by hosting some sort of event then those folks need to really understand what their course is about -- ditto on the yardage side of things. Plenty of clubs have sought to expand their ego bragging rights at the expense of a layout that more than adequately meets the needs of its membership.
One final thing -- how many of these long time bombers are routinely shooting 3, 4 or 5 under par when they play such a 6,600 yard layout? You say scoring doesn't matter -- we agree to disagree on that point.
-
China might manufacture most of what we use to play golf, however they are making it to order for US companies !
Amazing how some companies have almost eliminated the knockoffs by having their clubs made by the same firms.
:)
-
Gary,
That's true for today, but 20 years from now, our friends in China will have begun making their own equipment to their own specs.
But to me, David said it perfectly in post 72.
-
I also agree 100% with what David said in post # 72. It is not about the average golfer, but rather, the effect the ball is having on golf course design and re-design.
I bet my club is no different than most, where the top young players are pushing for new black tees, re-located bunkers, and 6 figure construction projects become the norm.
It's crazy and unnecessary. I also think the PGA realizes that it has a major problem on its hands because of the widening disconnect between the game the pros play versus its audience.
-
A few posts above Jason provided an interesting chart showing how playing Huntington Valley has changed over the years, but the last year was Jim Sullivan in 1999. I wonder if anyone can convince Jim to give us an update. It is a decade later and so age has likely taken it's toll, but I'll bet only the longest par fours have become three shot holes for him. ::)
Jason, you mentioned the change since then in percentage terms. Without commenting on whether the percentage is correct, I'd just like to point out that looking at this in terms of percentages tends to understate the impact the increases have on the design. Many of our courses cannot grow any more and even relatvely small percentage gains on already huge driving distances makes a huge difference. Also, a small percentage increase for a very long driver results in a larger real gain relative to the same percentage gain for a much shorter driver. In other words, on a course of static distance, the long hitter gets a bigger real advantage for the same percentage gain. Add this to the fact that the technology already disproportionately favors the longer hitter, and one can begin to understand how the growing gap between long and short shots strains the architecture beyond the breaking point.
-
Bill & David
It is not what distance does to golf courses, but members' perception of how easy their course plays when the flat bellies show once a year. Clubs don't have to change to combat distance, they choose to, imo, much more often than not, wastefully. To be honest, I think members would change their courses regardless of distance. Its in the nature of a club to do so and we have ample evidence of this. For this reason, it is best to focus on what we (as in the royal we) control, the courses and ourselves. We have no control over what flat bellies do. In fact, even if there is a roll back of even as much as 10% - it has no virtual effect on distance - these guys can still bomb it.
Ciao
-
In fact, even if there is a roll back of even as much as 10% - it has no virtual effect on distance - these guys can still bomb it.
Yeah, the people arguing for a "rollback" tend to claim that Tour players are now teeing off with 3-woods and hybrids instead of drivers because they hit it further than the course requires. It's a bit nervy to turn around and claim that we can "roll back" the ball 10, 15, 20 percent (whatever) and the result will be shorter courses. No, they'll just go back to hitting drivers if they need to.
-
...When I started playing golf in the early 1990's a slow swing speed hacker like me had little choice but to play hard as a rock two-piece Surlyn golf balls and just live with the fact that they chipped and putting like crap. All I've gotten out of the decade and a half of progress is that I can now play a ball that is as much fun around the greens as the balls the Tour players use but it doesn't veer off into the next ZIP code when sliced, fall out of the air after 90 yards or get destroyed when I hit a thin shot. And it goes just as far (in the air at least) as those old rocks. So when the revolution comes, I'll miss being able to eat my cake and have it too but I can play with rocks just like I used to if that's the deal. Pity it would have to come about because some people can't stand to see the elite 1% of golfers hitting it way, way, way past them instead of just way past then as they did a couple decades back.
Brent,
Do you have any data that would verify that you "had little choice but to play hard as a rock two-piece Surlyn golf balls?"
If you are the "slow swing speed hacker" you claim, that was probably the wrong ball choice. Not gaining distance with the ProV is exactly as expected since it gives the added distance to high swing speed players.
-
Sean,
You hit it right on the head...It's not about how the course plays for the average 15 hdcp. member, it's about keeping up with the Joneses and maintaining a courses status. This is not to be dismissed so easily as the standing of a course in a community, rankings etc. can dramatically affect membership values, greens fees, # rounds, etc....
-
People have been imploring the USGA and the R&A for decades to roll back the ball. Believe it or not, I found an article by the famous golf writer O.B. Keeler, in which he made the argument that the "modern golf ball" had to be adjusted to prevent the inexorable march to 7,000 yard golf courses. He wrote this in 1928! I think that it's very, very unlikely that anything will be done to take away the "improvements" to the golf ball. I think we just have to accept that the professionals play a much different game and that the older courses are going to be changed if they hope to keep hosting professional tournaments.
"During the history of golf, there has been only one serious attempt to roll back the ball. This occurred in 1930 when the USGA broke from R&A and unilaterally changed the specifications for a golf ball." JVB, The Balloon Ball, IMO section
Pretty likely since it actually happened.
Are not the initial velocity test, and the overall distance standard also ball roll backs? The technology is there to far exceed them, but can't be utilized.
-
...When I started playing golf in the early 1990's a slow swing speed hacker like me had little choice but to play hard as a rock two-piece Surlyn golf balls and just live with the fact that they chipped and putting like crap. All I've gotten out of the decade and a half of progress is that I can now play a ball that is as much fun around the greens as the balls the Tour players use but it doesn't veer off into the next ZIP code when sliced, fall out of the air after 90 yards or get destroyed when I hit a thin shot. And it goes just as far (in the air at least) as those old rocks. So when the revolution comes, I'll miss being able to eat my cake and have it too but I can play with rocks just like I used to if that's the deal. Pity it would have to come about because some people can't stand to see the elite 1% of golfers hitting it way, way, way past them instead of just way past then as they did a couple decades back.
Circa 1995 I played hard (typically Top Flite) Surlyn balls. I tried various things like a Titleist Professional, a Strata, et al. and they all lost distance big-time and went crooked. This was before the ProV1 came out but when it showed up it had the same effect given my swing. A few years later the Noodle-type low compression hard-cover balls came out and they gained me some (carry) distance but still played totally like rocks chipping and putting.
Only since 2005-ish have there been a couple models on the market that are as soft as a ProV1 around the greens yet I don't give up any distance relative to a rock-ball. I think the first one that exhibited that quality was the Maxfli "M2" (IIRC) and now I'm using a Taylor Made TP Red that actually seems to carry a bit farther than a low-compression hard-cover ball (which seems unbelievable but true). And it spins nice with a wedge but doesn't spin so much as to slice or hook excessively with the longer clubs. It's really some magic technology for a bad-face-angle 90mph swinger like me.
-
Circa 1995 I played hard (typically Top Flite) Surlyn balls. I tried various things like a Titleist Professional, a Strata, et al. and they all lost distance big-time and went crooked. This was before the ProV1 came out but when it showed up it had the same effect given my swing. A few years later the Noodle-type low compression hard-cover balls came out and they gained me some (carry) distance but still played totally like rocks chipping and putting.
Only since 2005-ish have there been a couple models on the market that are as soft as a ProV1 around the greens yet I don't give up any distance relative to a rock-ball. I think the first one that exhibited that quality was the Maxfli "M2" (IIRC) and now I'm using a Taylor Made TP Red that actually seems to carry a bit farther than a low-compression hard-cover ball (which seems unbelievable but true). And it spins nice with a wedge but doesn't spin so much as to slice or hook excessively with the longer clubs. It's really some magic technology for a bad-face-angle 90mph swinger like me.
So it seems you don't have any hard data, but are simply offering impressions.
Otherwise, you wouldn't attribute opposite characteristics between two balls, where one was a copy of the other.
-
Sean,
I am not so sure that the increase has only been felt by the professionals or the Plus Handicaps. The advantage the new balls provide the player is directly related to swing speed. The slower the swing speed, the less relative advantage these new balls provide. While I cannot tell you from personal experience (my swing is molasis) but it seems that the distance advantage really to kicks in for those somewhere in the mid to high 90's for the ProV1 type ball and closer to 110 for the ProV1x type ball.
And there are plenty of players -- even mid-single digit handicappers -- with high enough swing speeds to take advantage of distince dividend provided by these new balls. And even though these guys may not be great golfers, they hit the ball a mile (well, maybe a fifth of a mile.) And while I don't necessarily agree with them, I understand why these guys don't feel they fit in on 6500-6600 yard courses and especially 6200-6300 yard courses. As was noted above, these long hitters end up hitting way too many wedges and half wedges.
Plus, the growing distance gap presents design dilemnas even among those with similar scoring abilities. We now have very good golfers (say with an index of three) who might regularly drive the ball 70 to 90 yards less than those with similar scoring abilities, and with the distance difference decreasing with each shorter club.) My guess is that most courses have both such long and short hitters of similar abilities, but many courses cannot reasonably accomodate both groups from the same tees. This is especially so of newer courses which often feature very long carries for better players just to reach the fairways. Remember the first open at Bethpage where some professionals were having trouble even reaching the fairways? A similar setup and design problem exists at all courses, because the gap between golfers of similar abilities has grown and grown. How can architecture work when there is such a huge gap between short hitters and long hitters, especially when they are of similar scoring ability?
As for what should be done, I disagree that anything will ever change if we rely on the golfers to change it. Most of them don't understand the issue, and they can always find a newer and longer course or convince their own course to mutilate itself to accomidate them. And we have far too many Wardian golfers out there whose self-worth as golfers is very much tied into the Ball-(must)-Go-Far mentality and they continue to downplay and misrepresent the issues because they need to hit it a mile in their bones. (See Matt's posts above as an example of the kind of self-delusions these guys suffer from. Matt apparently hadn't even noticed the 30-40 yard increase in driving distance gained by the longest hitters with the introduction of these balls!)
Plus, no matter how they might feel about the issue, I don't think it is reasonable to expect Saturday morning golfers to carry their feelings on the issue into own matches, competitions, and club events in the hopes that Titleist or their courses will notice and change their ways. Depending on their swingspeed, playing with the old equipment might put them at a tremendous disadvantage, and I have trouble seeing how them making martyrs of themselves will help the situation.
I do agree with you in a post above, however, that the problem [and best hope for a solution] lies with the egos of those running the old established clubs. They need to push back against the USGA and stop the madness by saving their most valuable assets. One would think this would be easy, because those running the old great clubs are often the same guys as those running the USGA, but unfortunately this is a major disadvantage because these guys have acted as shills for the equipment manufacturers and are voluntarily self-mutilating their courses!
_____________________________________
In fact, even if there is a roll back of even as much as 10% - it has no virtual effect on distance - these guys can still bomb it.
Yeah, the people arguing for a "rollback" tend to claim that Tour players are now teeing off with 3-woods and hybrids instead of drivers because they hit it further than the course requires. It's a bit nervy to turn around and claim that we can "roll back" the ball 10, 15, 20 percent (whatever) and the result will be shorter courses. No, they'll just go back to hitting drivers if they need to.
Brent, once again you forget that this is about the architecture.
COURSES ARE BEING CHANGED (or built differently) because the long hitters are now hitting hybrids and irons off of tees that used to require drivers.[/b] If the ball is pushed back to a point that they must hit drivers again, then there is no reason to mess with the courses!
I only give a damn about this because of THE IMPACT IT IS HAVING ON THE COURSES.
Is this so difficult for everyone to understand? This is after all a website about golf courses.
-
I'm having trouble parsing your objection to my anecdote, Garland. No I am not in possession of a golf ball testing facility nor have I seen any published, comprehensive results from same. Not sure what is a copy of what but after trying the TP Red for a dozen rounds I told the pro at our club that it seemed to gain me some distance relative to other "Tour Quality" balls and he had heard the same from other players with my kind of swing speed. So it's all anecdotal but when my own experience comports with that of other players at my club and with the advice of the pro who sells all the different brands I consider that good enough evidence.
-
Sean,
A lot of us have seen the quote to the essence that it used to take two hours to play a round of golf, now it takes three. I don't recall who quotes it as their tagline here, but the interesting part is that it turns out to be a criticism of the lengthening of golf courses.
To me the ball issue causing egos of members of courses that few have any dream of accessing to lengthen their courses is of less consequence.
Unless we get a group of architects like Tom Doak that are in a position to build their courses the way they want, which is short by today's standards with a great walking game, then there is a big problem. As you well know, the new course developers are almost all demanding long courses, which leads to longer rounds, and other degradations of the game such as requiring golf carts. It is these courses that people actually have access to that can be blamed on the ever lengthening distance technology brings to the golf ball.
-
Brent,
You missed playing the Tour Edition ball by Spalding. It had the distance of a Top-Flite and the spin of a balata.
Do you remember watching Norman and/or Mickelson zipping one of these balls onto the green?....and sometimes chipping back on after they spun it back off the front?
-
Brent, once again you forget that this is about the architecture.
[/b]COURSES ARE BEING CHANGED (or built differently) because the long hitters are now hitting hybrids and irons off of tees that used to require drivers.[/b] If the ball is pushed back to a point that they must hit drivers again, then there is no reason to mess with the courses!
I only give a damn about this because of THE IMPACT IT IS HAVING ON THE COURSES.
Is this so difficult for everyone to understand? This is after all a website about golf courses.
Not difficult to understand. I just don't buy your dream scenario. You posit clubs who have lengthened their classic courses because elite players play all the Par 4's driver-wedge. Someone has pointed out that the really elite players (Tour pros) play a lot of courses with 3-woods or hybrids off the tee. Your claim is you can throttle back the ball and make them play their approach shots from further back and this will cause the clubs to cease lengthening their courses. Do I have that right?
My scenario is that no, the elite players would hit the throttled-back ball driver-wedge or maybe driver-9iron but unless you throttle it back a ridiculous amount those clubs are still going to lenghten, lengthen, lenghten some more in the hopes of seeing flat-bellies hit long irons into the greens that people were hitting long irons into 40 years ago. I do not think your proposed solution will result in your hoped-for result.
P.S. Let me amplify that one more bit. You are working from the assumption that clubs with older courses would like nothing better than to leave the courses unchanged but that the big, bad flat-bellies and equipment vendors are forcing them onto an endless path of longer, longer, longer. I think it's just as likely the clubs want to "update" their courses and will continue to do so even if (as it certainly appears at the moment) the gains in distance for elite players have leveled off.
-
Brendt,
you may be right that the cat's already out of the bag, but at least we can draw the line at 7500 yards instead of inexorably marching to 10,000...
-
Brendt.
I don't think you are recognizing that a huge component of the recent jump in distance is pure technology. It has nothing to do with fitness, etc. And it wouldn't be worth pushing the ball back a bit. But if they pushed it back to the mid-90s that would make a huge difference in how the old (and new courses played.)
I do agree with you that swingspeeds have increased, this too was driven by TECHNOLOGY. Not many could get away with swinging at 125 mph with a Balata because the spin would kill the shot either by a hook or slice, or by the incredible backspin such partially offseting the increased swing speed. Technology has advanced enough that, just as many of these factors have been taken out of the game, they could be put back into the game. In other words, the technology exists to draft regulations that actually would make a big difference and put the distance difference between long and short at a more manageable point. And it could be done without knocking back the slower swinger to the Rock Flite.
-
Sean,
I am not so sure that the increase has only been felt by the professionals or the Plus Handicaps. The advantage the new balls provide the player is directly related to swing speed. The slower the swing speed, the less relative advantage these new balls provide. While I cannot tell you from personal experience (my swing is molasis) but it seems that the distance advantage really to kicks in for those somewhere in the mid to high 90's for the ProV1 type ball and closer to 110 for the ProV1x type ball.
And there are plenty of players -- even mid-single digit handicappers -- with high enough swing speeds to take advantage of distince dividend provided by these new balls. And even though these guys may not be great golfers, they hit the ball a mile (well, maybe a fifth of a mile.) And while I don't necessarily agree with them, I understand why these guys don't feel they fit in on 6500-6600 yard courses and especially 6200-6300 yard courses. As was noted above, these long hitters end up hitting way too many wedges and half wedges.
Plus, the growing distance gap presents design dilemnas even among those with similar scoring abilities. We now have very good golfers (say with an index of three) who might regularly drive the ball 70 to 90 yards less than those with similar scoring abilities, and with the distance difference decreasing with each shorter club.) My guess is that most courses have both such long and short hitters of similar abilities, but many courses cannot reasonably accomodate both groups from the same tees. This is especially so of newer courses which often feature very long carries for better players just to reach the fairways. Remember the first open at Bethpage where some professionals were having trouble even reaching the fairways? A similar setup and design problem exists at all courses, because the gap between golfers of similar abilities has grown and grown. How can architecture work when there is such a huge gap between short hitters and long hitters, especially when they are of similar scoring ability?
As for what should be done, I disagree that anything will ever change if we rely on the golfers to change it. Most of them don't understand the issue, and they can always find a newer and longer course or convince their own course to mutilate itself to accomidate them. And we have far too many Wardian golfers out there whose self-worth as golfers is very much tied into the Ball-(must)-Go-Far mentality and they continue to downplay and misrepresent the issues because they need to hit it a mile in their bones. (See Matt's posts above as an example of the kind of self-delusions these guys suffer from. Matt apparently hadn't even noticed the 30-40 yard increase in driving distance gained by the longest hitters with the introduction of these balls!)
Plus, no matter how they might feel about the issue, I don't think it is reasonable to expect Saturday morning golfers to carry their feelings on the issue into own matches, competitions, and club events in the hopes that Titleist or their courses will notice and change their ways. Depending on their swingspeed, playing with the old equipment might put them at a tremendous disadvantage, and I have trouble seeing how them making martyrs of themselves will help the situation.
I do agree with you in a post above, however, that the problem [and best hope for a solution] lies with the egos of those running the old established clubs. They need to push back against the USGA and stop the madness by saving their most valuable assets. One would think this would be easy, because those running the old great clubs are often the same guys as those running the USGA, but unfortunately this is a major disadvantage because these guys have acted as shills for the equipment manufacturers and are voluntarily self-mutilating their courses!
_____________________________________
In fact, even if there is a roll back of even as much as 10% - it has no virtual effect on distance - these guys can still bomb it.
Yeah, the people arguing for a "rollback" tend to claim that Tour players are now teeing off with 3-woods and hybrids instead of drivers because they hit it further than the course requires. It's a bit nervy to turn around and claim that we can "roll back" the ball 10, 15, 20 percent (whatever) and the result will be shorter courses. No, they'll just go back to hitting drivers if they need to.
Brent, once again you forget that this is about the architecture.
COURSES ARE BEING CHANGED (or built differently) because the long hitters are now hitting hybrids and irons off of tees that used to require drivers.[/b] If the ball is pushed back to a point that they must hit drivers again, then there is no reason to mess with the courses!
I only give a damn about this because of THE IMPACT IT IS HAVING ON THE COURSES.
Is this so difficult for everyone to understand? This is after all a website about golf courses.
David
My experience of the USGA tells me they are not going to be the saviour of architecture. Logically, this leads me to look in another direction and that has to be the consumer. For a few reasons I know it isn't likely the consumer will be assertive on this issue. First, mist consumers don't accept there is a problem. More accurately, most don't care. Second, the urge change and keep up with the Jones' is overwhelmingly difficult to ignore for most. Finally, its easier to sit back and blame someone else for the problem even though the real problem lies with the consumer. So I guess we shall have to agree to disagree.
Garland
There are a whole host of reasons for the game being slower today than 100 years ago. Length of courses is one of them, however; the consumer has the choice and at the moment many choose long and slow. The point is that the consumer runs the show whether they accept that responsibility or not. I dare say that most on this site are guilty of the very things they rail against when it comes to technology and golf. Most are looking for ways to keep up with the Jones', yet want someone else to monitor and limit their consumer behaviour. I have no time for this double standard. When guys drop the technology, then they have earned the right to be taken seriously on this issue.
Ciao
-
So I suppose you're proposing that they not only lower the ODS by 10, 15, 20 percent but that they legislate higher-spinning balls that go crooked? I guess that dovetails with the shallow-grooved wedges. If you're willing to go far enough I guess you can make the high clubhead speed guys bunt the ball around intead of swinging at it but the whole exercise seems rather bloody-minded to me.
-
I'm having trouble parsing your objection to my anecdote, Garland. No I am not in possession of a golf ball testing facility nor have I seen any published, comprehensive results from same. Not sure what is a copy of what but after trying the TP Red for a dozen rounds I told the pro at our club that it seemed to gain me some distance relative to other "Tour Quality" balls and he had heard the same from other players with my kind of swing speed. So it's all anecdotal but when my own experience comports with that of other players at my club and with the advice of the pro who sells all the different brands I consider that good enough evidence.
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Stop Brent! Too funny! You're killing me!
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Please let me know when your pro recommends the the TopFlite Gamer to you so I can go check if hell has frozen over.
-
David
My experience of the USGA tells me they are not going to be the saviour of architecture. Logically, this leads me to look in another direction and that has to be the consumer. For a few reasons I know it isn't likely the consumer will be assertive on this issue. First, mist consumers don't accept there is a problem. More accurately, most don't care. Second, the urge change and keep up with the Jones' is overwhelmingly difficult to ignore for most. Finally, its easier to sit back and blame someone else for the problem even though the real problem lies with the consumer. So I guess we shall have to agree to disagree.
Ciao
Sean, I agree with everything you say about why the consumer won't do it, and I agree that the USGA probably won't. My hope was that a course like Augusta might finally draw the line,m but that seems just as unlikely. My only hope is that at least some of these guys at the great clubs eventually realize that they are cutting off their own noses and that they do what is right. I sense that it is a relatively small group in power and think it makes more sense to convince a small group with real power than the masses without. These are educated men who care about golf, and if they ever realize that the interests of golf are not aligned with the short term interests of the equipment manufacturers there would be hope.
I am not holding my breath, but will keep railing on about the issue in the hopes that if there are enough squeeky wheels maybe eventually we will get oiled.
_____________________________________
Brent, your last post to me is not worth a substantive response. I don't unerstand why, but you have much too much vitriol to discuss this issue reasonably for anything more than a post or two.
-
Sean,
It is my considered opinion that the consumer is too ill informed to be actually be accused of making a choice.
It is my considered opinion that the consumer has been trained by marketeers to respond to buzzwords like championship, links, 7000, etc.
-
David and Sean,
I would just like to note that ANGC shortened the course before the Masters this year over last year's yardage.
:)
-
David
Of course it would be easier if the USGA stepped up to the plate, but of course they feel they already have. As a second best scenario, of course it would be grand if club members told the PGA Tour and USGA to piss off, but we know from over 50 years past experience that they don't have the will power. The lure of being one of the big dogs is too much. Besides, I think members use distance as a crutch to change courses they would anyway. Everybody is an expert and that is we got tree lined, wet courses with shrunken greens. That leaves the consumer. Its a hard and unlikely road, but it is a road. The first step down that road HAS to be the guys complaining the most about this issue discontinue buying the latest and greatest. Until the day comes when the consumer realizes they are the part of the problem and much of the solution, real change won't happen. I don't know about you, but I am betting on effective status quo. That said, maybe a course or two can be saved the indignity of unnecessary change. One can always hope - of course - its better to act and where better to start than with oneself?
Ciao
-
Sean,
I trust that since I don't buy the latest and the greatest that I am allowed to complain. ;)
How about you David? If I remember correctly you are allowed to complain too.
-
Sean,
Again, the silver lining to the current economic downturn. While I don't expect the golf consumer to not want the best available LEGAL technology for posting a score for competition, handicap, etc...I do think that many will choose to play Lawsonia for $50 instead of a modern monstrosity for $200....
-
Sean,
I trust that since I don't buy the latest and the greatest that I am allowed to complain. ;)
How about you David? If I remember correctly you are allowed to complain too.
I am allowed to complain no matter what kind of equipment I use. Let's say I was a college baseball coach who sincerely believed that the NCAA should require all players to use only wooden bats. Should I not be allowed to express my opinion if I allowed the players on my team to play by the rules as they existed and use the bats of their choice? One need not martyr oneself to qualify to express an opinion on the direction of the game.
Also, it is not as easy as hitting old clubs. The major problem is the ball and they just don't make balls like they used to anymore. I assume Sean plays with the modern ball, unless he has a stash of Balata's somewhere.
That being said, I much prefer to play with equipment that is far from "state of the art" and often do. Nothing like the feeling a well struck persimmon, except maybe a well hit brassey with a good hickory shaft. (Not that I hit it well with anything all that often.) I had a high school kid with a pretty good swing hit my Macgregor "Bobby Jones" 4 Wood (circa 1951) and watched as he smoothed it out there the distance of a decent drive. He looked shocked and awed, like he had just seen a beautiful woman undressed for the first time.
-
Sean,
I trust that since I don't buy the latest and the greatest that I am allowed to complain. ;)
How about you David? If I remember correctly you are allowed to complain too.
I am allowed to complain no matter what kind of equipment I use. Let's say I was a college baseball coach who sincerely believed that the NCAA should require all players to use only wooden bats. Should I not be allowed to express my opinion if I allowed the players on my team to play by the rules as they existed and use the bats of their choice? One need not martyr oneself to qualify to express an opinion on the direction of the game.
Also, it is not as easy as hitting old clubs. The major problem is the ball and they just don't make balls like they used to anymore. I assume Sean plays with the modern ball, unless he has a stash of Balata's somewhere.
That being said, I much prefer to play with equipment that is far from "state of the art" and often do. Nothing like the feeling a well struck persimmon, except maybe a well hit brassey with a good hickory shaft. (Not that I hit it well with anything all that often.) I had a high school kid with a pretty good swing hit my Macgregor "Bobby Jones" 4 Wood (circa 1951) and watched as he smoothed it out there the distance of a decent drive. He looked shocked and awed, like he had just seen a beautiful woman undressed for the first time.
David
You can complain, but it won't get you anywhere and I don't want to hear it. I am more interested in what you are doing about the "problem". We have enough whingers, but are far short of folks with get up and go.
Ciao
-
(http://i921.photobucket.com/albums/ad55/till5farm/NelsonPg1.jpg)
-
(http://i921.photobucket.com/albums/ad55/till5farm/NelsonPg1a.jpg)
-
(http://i921.photobucket.com/albums/ad55/till5farm/NelsonPg2.jpg)
-
(http://i921.photobucket.com/albums/ad55/till5farm/NelsonPg2a.jpg)
-
Sean, if you think that martyring oneself to the old equipment is a prerequisit to qualify to have an opinion, then I probably qualify. But I'm not interested in playing the old stuff to bring about change. I just enjoy it more than the new stuff. Today I played 20 or so holes on a pitch and putt with a Tom Stewart niblick, a TS putter, and a Titleist ProV1. Does that change the meaning or consequence of anything I said above?
With all the knee jerk opinions and fallacious logic one reads regarding this issue, it seems that reasonably and logically explaining the problem and what should be done about it is a more productive avenue than a "look at me, I'm using an old club" approach. (Not that I haven't had plenty of occassion to say "look at me I'm using an old club.") After all, doesn't someone have to explain it to the masses so they can know what action to consider taking?
If trying to discuss the issue makes me a "whinger" then so be it. What does placing irrelevant and irrational conditions on how others try to address the issue make you?
____________________________________________________________
Rick Wolfe. Thanks very much for posting that. What a neat article. Wouldn't it be great to see those guys actually compete with that equipment. Those who think that Bobby Jones could hit it 300 yards at will should read it.
-
Sean,
I am not so sure that the increase has only been felt by the professionals or the Plus Handicaps. The advantage the new balls provide the player is directly related to swing speed. The slower the swing speed, the less relative advantage these new balls provide. While I cannot tell you from personal experience (my swing is molasis) but it seems that the distance advantage really to kicks in for those somewhere in the mid to high 90's for the ProV1 type ball and closer to 110 for the ProV1x type ball.
.....................
.............................
I seem to recall that we have previously debated this claim and the USGA Quintavalla study that says the claim is nonsense. But, I thought I'd point out again that the study concluded:
"Actually, there is no extra distance "bonus" for high swing speeds. This is true for the new tour balls, and all others as well. In fact, distance does not even increase linearly (see below), but rather it starts to fall off slightly at higher swing speeds - just the opposite of the popular misconception To be sure, hitting the ball faster means it goes longer; it's just that you don't get as much bang-for-the-buck at the highest speeds."
I am intrigued by your desire that the ball be rolled back in such a way as to enable a short hitter and a long hitter of equal handicap (3) to play equitably from the same tee. By definition, if their handicaps are equal, they should be able to play from any set of tees and score equally. Do you not feel that this is the case with the current ball? Or are you really asserting that the the two players were formerly of the same handicap, but that the longer player is now a lower cap because of his longer distance? Typically in players with large differences in length, but the same handicap, I think the shorter player has a better short game and putting than the longer hitter and that's how they level the playing field.
I am also intrigued by your desire to roll the ball back in such a way that long hitters lose some length, but that short hitters do not. In other words, compressing the distance difference generated from an 85 mph swing (say) and a 125 mph swing (say). Using the PGA Tour data it looks like the delta between their shortest and longest hitters has increased from 38 yards in the decade '85-'95 to to 53 yards in the 2000 decade (skewed a bit by that driving dog Pavin).
Let's say that in your future world, the ball could be re-engineered so that the longest hitter (Garrigus) loses15 yards and the shortest hitter (Pavin) loses nothing (although this is patently unfair since Quintavalla has demonstrated that there is no turbo boost for high swing speeds).
Let's also say that the molasses swinger such as yourself would gain 15 yards with this re-engineered ball (although I'm not sure where the fairness would be in that relative to my almost Pavin-like swing speed ;))
Let's further say that in your world the ball is further re-engineered so that all swing speeds lose 25 yards (the delta between the Tour average distance in the early 90's and the average in the late 2000's.
So, there we have a ball that both rolls back to the 90's and compresses the delta between swing speeds. So Garrigus rolls back from 312 to 272. Pavin would be down around 235. And, you would be down around 210 (what is your current driving distance - around 220? It's been a while since I saw you play at Rustic.)
So, now the long hitters, instead of playing every hole driver, flip wedge will be playing it driver, 8 iron (at most). Problem not solved in my opinion.
Your compression desire seems to me to be patently unfair, so would seem to me to be untenable to the USGA. Rolling the ball back 25 yards is not going to make a significant difference to the long bombers. At most that's two clubs.
And, please don't suggest going back to Balata or wound balls. I refuse to play a ball that I can cut with one mishit shot. I was throwing out an old golf bag tonight and found a bunch of old balls in it. One Tour Balata, one Tour Prestige and two Professionals. Three out of the four are out of round. And, no doubt all of them have windings that are relaxed. Others solid balls of the same vintage were at least round. I think I'll try them all out tomorrow and see how bad those wound balata balls really were.
-
Sean, if you think that martyring oneself to the old equipment is a prerequisit to qualify to have an opinion, then I probably qualify. But I'm not interested in playing the old stuff to bring about change. I just enjoy it more than the new stuff. Today I played 20 or so holes on a pitch and putt with a Tom Stewart niblick, a TS putter, and a Titleist ProV1. Does that change the meaning or consequence of anything I said above?
With all the knee jerk opinions and fallacious logic one reads regarding this issue, it seems that reasonably and logically explaining the problem and what should be done about it is a more productive avenue than a "look at me, I'm using an old club" approach. (Not that I haven't had plenty of occassion to say "look at me I'm using an old club.") After all, doesn't someone have to explain it to the masses so they can know what action to consider taking?
If trying to discuss the issue makes me a "whinger" then so be it. What does placing irrelevant and irrational conditions on how others try to address the issue make you?
____________________________________________________________
Rick Wolfe. Thanks very much for posting that. What a neat article. Wouldn't it be great to see those guys actually compete with that equipment. Those who think that Bobby Jones could hit it 300 yards at will should read it.
David
The topic has been discussed at length many times by many people over many years. Either you are going to do something about it or not. If not, that continuing to hammer on about it is whinging in my book.
So far as knee jerk reactions go, that is the crux of the entire problem; people's knee jerk reactions to a perceived distance problem for the very best players. Those reactions which essentially boil down to narrowing fairways, lengthening rough, adding wing bunkers and increasing yardage have been going on for yonks. These knee jerk reactions effect all of us much more than they do the best players and yet the so called problem persists. Now we have guys who want to roll the ball back 10%. Thats fine and dandy, but it doesn't solve any problems either. Without drastic action from the USGA/R&A, and I mean seriously drastic action, the bottom line is that to solve the problem clubs and individuals must do something, or rather, do nothing to their courses. Individuals can start boycotting courses which feed into the distance mantra. They can stop buying the latest and greatest. I know its easier said than done, but what other choice does a club or individual have if they are to take a stand? It does no good to moan than buy the all singing/dancing equipment and play courses which label themselves as championship standard because they are 7000 plus yards long. Its better to act then explain your actions than it is to pontificate.
Ciao
-
Sean,
as far as market forces are concerned-While I personally will play courses with reasonable length that are F/F because it suits my game better and is more fun, I will buy the best LEGAL equipment. It's clearly up to the regulating bodies and not the consumer. Starting a boycott is silly, starting a serious appeal to the USGA and R & A is not....
-
Sean,
as far as market forces are concerned-While I personally will play courses with reasonable length that are F/F because it suits my game better and is more fun, I will buy the best LEGAL equipment. It's clearly up to the regulating bodies and not the consumer. Starting a boycott is silly, starting a serious appeal to the USGA and R & A is not....
Jud
Well then, if you believe distance is a problem, then you are what is known as a hypocrite. You can't have it both ways and say whats good for the goose isn't good for the gander.
It is a constant wonder to me that people can't see how buying and using the equipment is a contributing factor to the "distance issue". Its not all on the USGA - we do have a choice regardless of the what the blue suits say - in fact most golfers don't give a rats ass about the USGA anyway. There are far and away more courses which never host anything of remote importance than those that do, but is the lengthening of courses limited to those that host important tournies? Not on your life. But then as I always say, its much, much easier to blame someone else rather than look in the mirror, accept responsibility for one's actions and try to make a change. That actually requires doing something, even if its just a token "I don't watch the pros", but it seems even this is a step too far many golfers. Why? Because distance is a complete non-issue to them. Its a storm in a tea cup that has been hangin about for 100 years.
Ciao
-
So, I should show up for the club championship played at scratch with a cloth bag full of hickories?
-
So, I should show up for the club championship played at scratch with a cloth bag full of hickories?
Jud
No, I am suggesting no such thing. I am saying that if you really believe there is a distance problem and given that the USGA/R&A have been completely ineffectual in dealing with the matter, what other options do you have other than to shut up or put up? There are more than enough mouth pieces out there - we don't need any others - what is needed is action. To say there is a distance problem then go out and buy a canon launcher is akin to saying there is a problem with energy inefficiency and then going out and buying a 5 litre monster to run around town. The behaviour suggests you don't really care about the issue and thus your opinion on the matter doesn't carry much weight. When beahviour changes is when I take note.
Lets not mistake anything here. I don't care how you or anybody else chooses to play the game. I personally believe it has very little, if any effect on me in monetary or enjoyment terms - well not enough for me to devote time and energy to combat the problem. Those that claim to really care about the issue should act rather than be passive. It gets old hearing about the issue from guys who contribute to it - especially when they want to point the finger elsewhere.
Ciao
-
Kind of a silly comparison. A diesel car that gets 50 mpg (if we could buy one in the states) gets me to work in traffic just as well as a ferarri. It's like saying that UK footballers should only work out on gym equipment made before 1970. They don't use performance enhancing drugs (generally) because they are against the rules of their sport as laid down by the governing bodies. They do use the latest technology that is approved for them by the powers that be (footwear, uniforms, balls, etc...). To stick your head in the sand is not only silly, it's unikely to attract a bunch of others to stick theirs in the sand...so you end up having to chat with Melvyn with sand in your mouth....
-
Bryan,
Please specify the context of the result of the study you quote. Without context, it is meaningless.
I believe you left out the context of David's discussion of the short knocker vs. the bomber. Was not that context how can you make relevant the architecture for both players in such a match?
-
Bryan,
small point of contest. people of varying handicaps do not play exactly equally from the same tee. I believe, at least in the USGA version, that there is a small bias that favors lower handicaps so as to foster a desire to improve....
-
Sean,
Your endless preaching about not buying modern equipment is getting a bit tiring.
It's the ball Sean! There is no option for buying a ball comparable to the old ball. It doesn't exist. You are asking people to do the impossible.
It has been pointed out on this site time and again that the clear cause of the distance problem is the ball. There was a significant jump in distance when the Strata was introduced. Followed by Titleist losing the tour ball preference race, to which they responded by copying the Strata with the ProV1. The second jump occurred when they discovered they could optimize the use of the new ball by changing equipment to using higher lofts on the drivers.
Since for a particular person a 7 degree driver was optimal with the old ball, and 11 degree driver is optimal for the new ball. Are you saying a person is a hypocrite if he doesn't continue to play a 7 degree driver with the new ball?
If you are going to call people hypocrites, you need to be knowledgeable enough to know you are speaking the truth instead of just being insulting.
-
Garland,
The context of the USGA study was to settle the question of whether there was a disproportionate gain in distance at higher swing speeds. The answer was no. You, and others, can read the whole article if you wish for context at http://www.usga.org/news/2006/April/Speed-Vs--Distance--Do-Long-Hitters-Get-An-Unfair-Benefit-/ (http://www.usga.org/news/2006/April/Speed-Vs--Distance--Do-Long-Hitters-Get-An-Unfair-Benefit-/)
Jud,
Not sure what your point is? If you're suggesting that David wants a short hitter and a long hitter of equal handicaps to experience the architecture of the course the same way from the same tee, I'd suggest that that is not possible, now or in the past. As I read it, David wants to compress the distance delta between slow swing speeds and high swing speed players. He hasn't said by how much, but seems to suggest that it should be back to some perceived delta from the past. Perhaps he could clarify or be specific about the intended goal. How much of a delta in distance should there be between a 90 vs a 125 mph player. Currently it's maybe 100 yards. Should it be 50 yards; 25 yards; none? Unless you get ridiculous about it, I doubt that you can get them close enough together to make a course architecture play the same for two players of such disparate swing speeds.
-
Jud
I do not have my head stuck in the sand, far from it. I am voicing my opinions strongly on what I feel is wrong with the game and which is getting worse year on year.
This is a DG but many do not commit to discussion or for that matter bother that much about contributing to any subject, let alone starting a topic.
I want the subjects that are slowly strangling the game brought out into the open. However, if many do not see a problem, many more cannot be bothered even though they may agree there is a problem, what can you do except keep plodding on. The fact of the matter is that we always have to fall back on history to seek an answer or resolution to the problem. Correct me if I am wrong but your own legal system works that way. Your courts accept and refer to previous cases as acceptable points of law (it has precedent), so we too in golf should have the same facility on that basis, if it is good enough for our legal system then it should be good enough for golf. History shows golf is a walking game, now all you have to do is find something to back up your point of view.
Of course, there is the common sense approach that we just can keep increasing the length of our course for the gifted few. That in doing so, we destroy our own history and great courses, not to mention wonderful holes in the process. However, the most obvious would IHMO be the actual cost to keep increasing the courses, then the cost for new sites as no more space or spare land at the existing sites and the cost to design and build these new marathon courses. In the meantime, equipment manufacturers will continue to seek to better their previous efforts, starting the whole ball rolling again. Nevertheless, while all this is going on the only losers are the golfers who pay for the privilege to play the game of golf. All will continue to make money out of us, the poor sods who have to pay in the end, be it for new equipment or new or modifying courses.
Therefore, I believe the only ones who are sticking their head in the sand are those who know they are going to make lots of money doing nothing. The equipment Manufacturers and our governing bodies are fighting for a place in the sand.
To those who can’t be bothered, don’t moan or complain, those who are aware and can’t be bothered because it does not really affect them, you should be ashamed of yourselves. Those who prefer to ride carts are not involved because they are not playing golf, which leaves just a few who do seem to care, who feel that the game matters.
So Jud, don’t worry, it’s not me with my head in the sand, its you because who do not know what to do, so you are willing to take advantage of all options, well why not, its only golf.
Melvyn
-
Bryan,
It appears your quoted study is irrelevant to what we are discussing here. It is a comparison of slow swinging tour pros with fast swinging tour pros.
It conveniently neglects to point out that if you plot distance against swing speed for the high spinning ball and distance against swing speed for the low spinning ball, that the lines cross. They cross at a point well below the slow swinging tour pro's swing speed.
-
Bryan,
merely pointing out the following (and off topic):
http://www.la84foundation.org/SportsLibrary/Outing/Volume_39/outXXXIX02/outXXXIX02u.pdf
-
I was going to write something about us all loving the classic courses and wanting to do what we can to preserve them and why does every discussion here need to turn into a pissing match, but I couldn't get my head out of the sand cart path...... :'(
-
Bryan,
We have discussed it before, and I don't have time to get into it in great detail right now, but I will try to later.
The USGA study established nothing more than that they themselves have no concept of the problem that the new balls have created for golf. They set up then disproved a few overly simplistic claims, but in the process they completely ignored the real problem.
In essence, the USGA proved what most high school physics students could probably guess at. For a particular golf ball the distance gained by increasing swing speed from 110 to 120 mph will be less than the distance gained by increasing the swing speed from 100 to 110 mph.
So, for example, BALL A gained about 34 yards when swing speed was increased from 90 to 100 mph, and about 31 yards from 100 to 110 mph, and increased just under 25 yards when swing speed increased from 110 yards to 120 mph. So, FOR A PARTICULAR BALL, incremental increases in swing speed DO NOT result in disproportionate increases in distance gained. Fine. That makes perfect sense. It is not accurate to say that the ProV1x suddenly is activated at 110 mph.
However, this entirely misses the issue. As understand it, the issue is: DOES THE NEW BALL TECHNOLOGY DISPROPORTIONALLY BENEFIT THOSE WITH FASTER SWING SPEEDS? The answer is YES.
[I know some of you are thinking But you just agreed with the usga that the answer is "No." I haven't. It is difficult to understand (apparently too difficult for the USGA) but the study and result above doesn't even address this issue.]
In order to figure this out we must compare driving distances of the new balls at various swing speeds with BALLS WHICH WERE STATE OF THE ART BEFORE THE INTRODUCTION OF THESE NEW BALLS. That way we can look at who has benefited from these balls and who has not. Also, we need to keep in mind that, for most golfers, swing speeds can't go much higher. I can't rev my swing speed up to 120. What matters for me is, "With my swing speed, does the ProV1x go further than what I could have bought before." The answer is obviously NO.
________________________________________
A hypothetical using three balls and three golfers, and two jumps in ball distance technology . . .
The BALLS: the PRE (representing the state of the art before the first tech jump, when new balls took over), the V (representing the first generation of these new balls), and the X (representing the second generation fo these new balls.)
The GOLFERS: EIGHTY, HUNDRED, and ONE-TWENTY, named after their swing speed.
- EIGHTY hits the PRE farther than the V and a lot farther than the X.
- HUNDRED hits V a lot farther than the PRE and farther than the X.
- ONE-TWENTY hits the X a lot farther than both the PRE and the V.
What has the technological boom done for EIGHTY's driving distance? NOTHING. The first tech bump hurt EIGHTY relative to the others, and the second bump hurt him more. (If he can no longer find a ball similar to the PRE and must play something like X or V, then his actual driving distance decreases in real terms, and his relative disadvantage to the others grows even greater.)
What has the technological boom done for HUNDRED's driving distance? The first tech bump gave HUNDRED a disproportionate advantage over EIGHTY, compared to where they were before. (But the second Tech bump put him at a relative disadvantage to ONE-TWENTY.
What has the technological boom done for ONE-TWENTY? Relative to the state of the art before the advance, ONE-TWENTY HAS REAPED BIG BENEFITS over the other two.
So if PRE has gotten no benefit from the technological advances, and ONE-TWENTY has reaped huge benefits, then how can the USGA say that "there is no extra distance bonus for high swing speeds." Well, they can't at least not if they want to correctly state the current circumstance. But the reason that they do so is that their study was asking the WRONG QUESTIONS.
The USGA focused on how each particular ball behaved as swing speed increased without COMPARING HOW NEW BALLS BEHAVED COMPARED TO OLD BALLS. So, the USGA told EIGHTY, HUNDRED, AND ONE-TWENTY that if they ALL PLAY THE ProVIx, the distance difference between HUNDRED'S drive and EIGHTY's drive will be slightly larger than the distance difference between ONE-TWENTY's drive and HUNDRED's drive. But if I am EIGHTY that is of little comfort, because if I PLAY THE ProV1x then I take a huge hit to my distance compared to what it was before! I lose ground while they gain ground, because I don't swing fast enough for the ball to work for me at all. And it sure is heck seems like they have received a distance dividend that has passed me by.
_____________________________
The USGA's own numbers more than hint at this glitch in their study. From 90 to 100 mph, the distance increases 34 yards, or 3.4 yards per mph. As we go down in speed we will lose slightly more distance per mph (this is the corollary of gaining less distance as swingspeed goes up. So when we drop from 90 to 80 we lose more than 34 yards, and if we drop to 70 mph we lose at least 102 yards and probably a bit more.
According to the study, the distance of BALL A at 90 mph swing speed was about 220 yards. So for the 80 mph swing speed, the distance is less than 186 yards, total driving distance. For the 70 mph swinger, the total distance is less than 153 yards. AND THESE NUMBERS ARE PROBABLY TOO LONG, BECAUSE THE USGA HAS PROVEN THAT INCREASE IN DISTANCE PER INCREASE IN MPH TAPERS OFF AS THE NUMBERS GET HIGHER (THEREFORE THE DECREASE MUST GROW AS SWINGSPEED DECREASES.
Does anyone think that someone with an 80 mph or 70 mph swing speed has gotten any more distance out of the technology behind this ball? Even the golfer with a 90 mph swing speed is only driving it just over 220 yards total with this technologically advanced ball. Meanwhile those with swinging it 125 mph are hitting it 320. So a golfer with a swing speed of 90 (which used to be a respectable swing speed) is almost 100 yards behind those with faster swing speeds.
I don't have great numbers for the old balls, but I think I may have some somewhere and I'll try to find them later.
NOTE: EDITED TO CORRECT SOME ERRORS IN THE NUMBERS.
-
As I noted above, I made some changes to the above, and apologize for those writing long posts to correct those errors. I am sure you will be able to find other errors though.
__________________________________________________________________
Bryan, I didn't address what should be done, but if you've followed me thus far then you probably have a pretty good idea of where I am going.
The problem is that USGA is essentially encouraging the manufacturers to build golf balls that pass the distance test yet have very steep increases in distance gained per incremental increase in swing speed. So when their professionals swing faster, they reap a large (but slightly diminishing) benefit for each mph increase. Unfortunately, this means that these balls lose at least the same distance for every step down in swing speed. So while these balls are great for fast swing speeds, they are dogs for the rest of us.
I really can't get to into it now but it seems that they need to not only set a max limit at a certain speed, but also place a control on the slope of the increased distance per incremental increase in club head speed. This could be accomplished easily enough by setting distance limits at speeds, or by setting one limit and then also setting a maximum slope (the same thing really) And according to the study you site, the manufacturers couldn't possibly go above this max slope as swing speeds increase.
This would get at both the absolute distance problem and the relative gap between long and short.
-
Sean,
Your endless preaching about not buying modern equipment is getting a bit tiring.
It's the ball Sean! There is no option for buying a ball comparable to the old ball. It doesn't exist. You are asking people to do the impossible.
It has been pointed out on this site time and again that the clear cause of the distance problem is the ball. There was a significant jump in distance when the Strata was introduced. Followed by Titleist losing the tour ball preference race, to which they responded by copying the Strata with the ProV1. The second jump occurred when they discovered they could optimize the use of the new ball by changing equipment to using higher lofts on the drivers.
Since for a particular person a 7 degree driver was optimal with the old ball, and 11 degree driver is optimal for the new ball. Are you saying a person is a hypocrite if he doesn't continue to play a 7 degree driver with the new ball?
If you are going to call people hypocrites, you need to be knowledgeable enough to know you are speaking the truth instead of just being insulting.
Garland
I don't know what else to call a guy who complains about something, but then carries on feeding the problem. That said, I didn't call Jud a hypocrite. I said he would be a hypocrite if he did as described. I have no idea about Jud or his playing practices and frankly, I don't care. I have made it clear that I don't believe the long ball has caused me any grief whatsoever. The so called problem has been blown way out of proportion so far as I am concerned. Furthrmore, I have made it clear that it is my opinion that courses would be changed for whatever reason. At the moment, for some clubs the reason is the course is too short. I don't buy it, but that is fine with me because there will always be some justification which will often be dodgy.
Ciao
-
Sean,
Your endless preaching about not buying modern equipment is getting a bit tiring.
It's the ball Sean! There is no option for buying a ball comparable to the old ball. It doesn't exist. You are asking people to do the impossible.
It has been pointed out on this site time and again that the clear cause of the distance problem is the ball. There was a significant jump in distance when the Strata was introduced. Followed by Titleist losing the tour ball preference race, to which they responded by copying the Strata with the ProV1. The second jump occurred when they discovered they could optimize the use of the new ball by changing equipment to using higher lofts on the drivers.
Since for a particular person a 7 degree driver was optimal with the old ball, and 11 degree driver is optimal for the new ball. Are you saying a person is a hypocrite if he doesn't continue to play a 7 degree driver with the new ball?
If you are going to call people hypocrites, you need to be knowledgeable enough to know you are speaking the truth instead of just being insulting.
Garland
I don't know what else to call a guy who complains about something, but then carries on feeding the problem. That said, I didn't call Jud a hypocrite. I said he would be a hypocrite if he did as described. I have no idea about Jud or his playing practices and frankly, I don't care. I have made it clear that I don't believe the long ball has caused me any grief whatsoever. The so called problem has been blown way out of proportion so far as I am concerned. Furthrmore, I have made it clear that it is my opinion that courses would be changed for whatever reason. At the moment, for some clubs the reason is the course is too short. I don't buy it, but that is fine with me because there will always be some justification which will often be dodgy.
Ciao
Sean,
Did you even read what I wrote? Are you claiming that someone is a hypocrite if they don't give up golf in order to complain about the ball?
You say that you don't believe the long ball has caused you any grief. Then why do you come to the States and complain about the cost of golf where you would like to play? As the ball get longer, the cost of golf goes up. It is as simple as that. You want us to believe it doesn't cause you any grief? Then don't make your complaints public.
-
Sean,
Your endless preaching about not buying modern equipment is getting a bit tiring.
It's the ball Sean! There is no option for buying a ball comparable to the old ball. It doesn't exist. You are asking people to do the impossible.
It has been pointed out on this site time and again that the clear cause of the distance problem is the ball. There was a significant jump in distance when the Strata was introduced. Followed by Titleist losing the tour ball preference race, to which they responded by copying the Strata with the ProV1. The second jump occurred when they discovered they could optimize the use of the new ball by changing equipment to using higher lofts on the drivers.
Since for a particular person a 7 degree driver was optimal with the old ball, and 11 degree driver is optimal for the new ball. Are you saying a person is a hypocrite if he doesn't continue to play a 7 degree driver with the new ball?
If you are going to call people hypocrites, you need to be knowledgeable enough to know you are speaking the truth instead of just being insulting.
Garland
I don't know what else to call a guy who complains about something, but then carries on feeding the problem. That said, I didn't call Jud a hypocrite. I said he would be a hypocrite if he did as described. I have no idea about Jud or his playing practices and frankly, I don't care. I have made it clear that I don't believe the long ball has caused me any grief whatsoever. The so called problem has been blown way out of proportion so far as I am concerned. Furthrmore, I have made it clear that it is my opinion that courses would be changed for whatever reason. At the moment, for some clubs the reason is the course is too short. I don't buy it, but that is fine with me because there will always be some justification which will often be dodgy.
Ciao
Sean,
Did you even read what I wrote? Are you claiming that someone is a hypocrite if they don't give up golf in order to complain about the ball?
You say that you don't believe the long ball has caused you any grief. Then why do you come to the States and complain about the cost of golf where you would like to play? As the ball get longer, the cost of golf goes up. It is as simple as that. You want us to believe it doesn't cause you any grief? Then don't make your complaints public.
Garland
I have made myself perfectly clear. You have taken my argument off into Never Never Land.
If you think the length of courses is the main reason for the price of golf, you have had too much mountain air. First and foremost, the price of golf is a function of what the market will bear. Length of courses is a minor issue in terms of green fees.
Ciao
-
Garland
I have made myself perfectly clear. You have taken my argument off into Never Never Land.
If you think the length of courses is the main reason for the price of golf, you have had too much mountain air. First and foremost, the price of golf is a function of what the market will bear. Length of courses is a minor issue in terms of green fees.
Ciao
As David has tried to point out to you, your argument was in Never Never Land long before I got a hold of it. I just though Never Never Land was an appropriate response for Never Never Land.
My home course is 6000 yards par 70. Are you telling me that a comparable course at 7000 yards would not need approximately 20% more in green fees? Also, notice that I did not say green fees. I said cost of golf! Are you telling me there would be zero increase in cart ridership when the course is lengthened? If cart ridership goes up, so does the cost to play when you average in the cart. Also so does the cost to play when you average in the added maintenance cost for more carts. Furthermore, with the cart option, GCAs spread courses out even more again raising the real estate and maintenance costs.
I at no point made any reference to length being the main reason for the cost of golf. Don't take my statements to Never Never Land.
Ciao
-
Bifurcation is beautiful. Not perfect, but what is?
Does any one think that Tiger's Nike clubs are the same that we can pull off the rack? The elite play a different game. Let them. I wouldn't even mind if they had their own courses.
-
I'm all for the Tour pros playing their own game but I have a feeling "bifurcation" might quickly trickle down to guys I actually play golf with on occasion. I'm pretty sure collegiate golf-team players, aspiring collegians at the high-school level and the guys who are competitive in state-level amateur events would all want to part of the "elite". Not sure about the next level down, those 1 to +2 handicappers who can break par on most courses but aren't quite on the big-time level.
-
I'm all for the Tour pros playing their own game but I have a feeling "bifurcation" might quickly trickle down to guys I actually play golf with on occasion. I'm pretty sure collegiate golf-team players, aspiring collegians at the high-school level and the guys who are competitive in state-level amateur events would all want to part of the "elite". Not sure about the next level down, those 1 to +2 handicappers who can break par on most courses but aren't quite on the big-time level.
I agree about the "trickle down" part.
I think Rich Goodale once described it as "unification through bifurcation".(Apologies if I've misquoted)
-
Brent,
One of the great things about golf is that we can choose our companions and the games we play. Club tournaments often have their own rules and the various flights play off different tees. I am assuming that the sponsors can choose which ball is suitable for the level and purpose of the competition.
I am very much opposed to policies instituted to address the problems or needs of relatively small numbers or minorities that are then applied broadly. If the problem is that a minority of golfers can generate clubhead speeds exceeding 115+ mph and hit the balls progidious distances, the goal should not be to also penalize those who are distance impaired.
BTW, if the goal is to rein back distance to reduce the advantage of long hitters and save the Classic courses from seemingly unintelligent owners, in the name of fairness, justice, and equity, should the greens be altered to offset the advantage of great putters and short game players? Is this done with slower speeds and greater contour?
-
Lou,
I don't see bifurcation as a solution because the distance problem has trickled down into those who are good golfers but by no means good enough for a tour. You have low to mid-single digit handicappers with a large range of swing speeds and therefore a huge distance gap between them. Look at the numbers above. The distance could easily be 60 to 80 yards off the tee for those with the same index. It is very difficult to build a course that adequately interests and challenges golfers with large disparities in how far they hit the ball, and that problem will not change with bifurcation.
More importantly, I think your base assumption -- that slower swingers would necessarily be hurt by a a rolled back ball -- is incorrect. slower swingers weren't helped much distance-wise by these new balls and there is no reason that the ball couldn't be rolled back so that aren't hurt much.
I don't get your last paragraph at all. Courses function better when the distance gap between long and short is more in line with what it has been historically, prior to this latest techno jump for some (but not for others.) So it is a matter of balance. All games have all sorts of balances and for the game to remain fun and interesting for all, it is important to keep it in balance.
-
So at some point the argument has not-so-subtly changed from:
The USGA allowed the manufacturers to produce balls with performance far beyond the historical limits they claim to enforce, resulting in ever-longer courses. Therefore, rolling back the golf ball to something akin to historical performance parameters will help arrest this trend which was fueled by ball improvements.
and now goes something like:
Today's best, strongest and most skilled players hit the ball so much harder than us pudgy middle-aged hackers (and harder than anyone was capable of hitting it a few decades ago) that something must be done to bring their distances back to only a modest increment beyond our own. This is best done by severely curtailing ball performance in a yet-to-be-invented manner that punishes high clubhead speed players while having minimal effect on hackers.
The first argument I can buy and in fact have a lot of sympathy toward. The second argument is complete bullshit.
-
So at some point the argument has not-so-subtly changed from:
The USGA allowed the manufacturers to produce balls with performance far beyond the historical limits they claim to enforce, resulting in ever-longer courses. Therefore, rolling back the golf ball to something akin to historical performance parameters will help arrest this trend which was fueled by ball improvements.
and now goes something like:
Today's best, strongest and most skilled players hit the ball so much harder than us pudgy middle-aged hackers (and harder than anyone was capable of hitting it a few decades ago) that something must be done to bring their distances back to only a modest increment beyond our own. This is best done by severely curtailing ball performance in a yet-to-be-invented manner that punishes high clubhead speed players while having minimal effect on hackers.
The first argument I can buy and in fact have a lot of sympathy toward. The second argument is complete bullshit.
Brent, I too think the second argument is complete bullshit. Fortunately I think it only exists in your mind. I still don't understand these outbursts of yours every couple of posts.
-
"I seem to recall that we have previously debated this claim and the USGA Quintavalla study that says the claim is nonsense. But, I thought I'd point out again that the study concluded:
"Actually, there is no extra distance "bonus" for high swing speeds. This is true for the new tour balls, and all others as well. In fact, distance does not even increase linearly (see below), but rather it starts to fall off slightly at higher swing speeds - just the opposite of the popular misconception To be sure, hitting the ball faster means it goes longer; it's just that you don't get as much bang-for-the-buck at the highest speeds.""
Bryan:
What is the USGA Quintavalla study?
-
Bryan:
What is the USGA Quintavalla study?
...
The context of the USGA study was to settle the question of whether there was a disproportionate gain in distance at higher swing speeds. The answer was no. You, and others, can read the whole article if you wish for context at http://www.usga.org/news/2006/April/Speed-Vs--Distance--Do-Long-Hitters-Get-An-Unfair-Benefit-/ (http://www.usga.org/news/2006/April/Speed-Vs--Distance--Do-Long-Hitters-Get-An-Unfair-Benefit-/)
...
The study really does not address what we are discussing here.
David's response is that the USGA doesn't get it.
The other choice would be that the USGA is trying to obfuscate the issue. The cynical will draw that conclusion.
-
Bryan,
It appears your quoted study is irrelevant to what we are discussing here. It is a comparison of slow swinging tour pros with fast swinging tour pros.
It conveniently neglects to point out that if you plot distance against swing speed for the high spinning ball and distance against swing speed for the low spinning ball, that the lines cross. They cross at a point well below the slow swinging tour pro's swing speed.
......................
I thought it was relevant to David's original point. I see he has clarified his point for me.
It does prove that there is no disproportionate gain for the modern ball as swing speed increases. It does not prove/disprove that there was a disproportionate gain between for high swing speeds between a 1990's ball vs a 2000's ball.
Do you have any quantitative study that you could point me to, or post here, that demonstrates the crossing lines theory that you state above? Or is this just your anecdotal feeling? I am prepared to accept that this is the case, but I've never seen a study that demonstrates it. I assume that your reference to high spinning and low spinning balls are to the 1990's Tour Balata and Pro V1 respectively. Or did you have some other balls in mind? Not all balls in the 90's or in the '00's are uniformly high spinning or low spinning.
-
Bryan,
It appears your quoted study is irrelevant to what we are discussing here. It is a comparison of slow swinging tour pros with fast swinging tour pros.
It conveniently neglects to point out that if you plot distance against swing speed for the high spinning ball and distance against swing speed for the low spinning ball, that the lines cross. They cross at a point well below the slow swinging tour pro's swing speed.
......................
I thought it was relevant to David's original point. I see he has clarified his point for me.
It does prove that there is no disproportionate gain for the modern ball as swing speed increases. It does not prove/disprove that there was a disproportionate gain between for high swing speeds between a 1990's ball vs a 2000's ball.
Do you have any quantitative study that you could point me to, or post here, that demonstrates the crossing lines theory that you state above? Or is this just your anecdotal feeling? I am prepared to accept that this is the case, but I've never seen a study that demonstrates it. I assume that your reference to high spinning and low spinning balls are to the 1990's Tour Balata and Pro V1 respectively. Or did you have some other balls in mind? Not all balls in the 90's or in the '00's are uniformly high spinning or low spinning.
Brian,
One of my major sources for information like this is Tom Wishon's The Search for the Perfect Golf Club. Unfortunately, I don't have it available now.
You are right. I am referring to Tour Balata vs ProV1. Tom Paul has reported on this website that the USGA told him that tour pros would lose approximately 25 yards if they were forced back to the Tour Balata.
I will do some searching to see if I can come up with more concrete data.
-
The gutta percha ball stabilised the game in the 1850 and ran until the Haskell in the late 1890’s. Why not just roll back the ball to that of the gutta era. Perhaps to please some make it slightly easier to get airborne. Or at the very least use the Gutta as the starting point for distance limitations. Want to play golf then play golf using modern technology but to the distance parameters set by the Gutta percha ball. That should raise a challenge, retain our current courses, reduce some of the long modern course and bring back into play the ability to have 36 holes in a day without the need to start a 6.30AM. That should also please the manufacturers, as they will be able to resupply all with new clubs and ball without ruining our existing courses. All are happy and we the ordinary golfers still have to pay for it all, but this time just our replacement clubs and ball.
However, will it happen with our current Governing Bodies. I feel we could be heading for a revolution, a golfing revolution, if only we all could agree to unite on this issue..
Melvyn
-
Bryan,
We have discussed it before, and I don't have time to get into it in great detail right now, but I will try to later.
The USGA study established nothing more than that they themselves have no concept of the problem that the new balls have created for golf. They set up then disproved a few overly simplistic claims, but in the process they completely ignored the real problem.
In essence, the USGA proved what most high school physics students could probably guess at. For a particular golf ball the distance gained by increasing swing speed from 110 to 120 mph will be less than the distance gained by increasing the swing speed from 100 to 110 mph.
So, for example, BALL A gained about 34 yards when swing speed was increased from 90 to 100 mph, and about 31 yards from 100 to 110 mph, and increased just under 25 yards when swing speed increased from 110 yards to 120 mph. So, FOR A PARTICULAR BALL, incremental increases in swing speed DO NOT result in disproportionate increases in distance gained. Fine. That makes perfect sense. It is not accurate to say that the ProV1x suddenly is activated at 110 mph.
However, this entirely misses the issue. As understand it, the issue is: DOES THE NEW BALL TECHNOLOGY DISPROPORTIONALLY BENEFIT THOSE WITH FASTER SWING SPEEDS? The answer is YES.
[I know some of you are thinking But you just agreed with the usga that the answer is "No." I haven't. It is difficult to understand (apparently too difficult for the USGA) but the study and result above doesn't even address this issue.]
In order to figure this out we must compare driving distances of the new balls at various swing speeds with BALLS WHICH WERE STATE OF THE ART BEFORE THE INTRODUCTION OF THESE NEW BALLS. That way we can look at who has benefited from these balls and who has not. Also, we need to keep in mind that, for most golfers, swing speeds can't go much higher. I can't rev my swing speed up to 120. What matters for me is, "With my swing speed, does the ProV1x go further than what I could have bought before." The answer is obviously NO.
________________________________________
A hypothetical using three balls and three golfers, and two jumps in ball distance technology . . .
The BALLS: the PRE (representing the state of the art before the first tech jump, when new balls took over), the V (representing the first generation of these new balls), and the X (representing the second generation fo these new balls.)
The GOLFERS: EIGHTY, HUNDRED, and ONE-TWENTY, named after their swing speed.
- EIGHTY hits the PRE farther than the V and a lot farther than the X.
- HUNDRED hits V a lot farther than the PRE and farther than the X.
- ONE-TWENTY hits the X a lot farther than both the PRE and the V.
What has the technological boom done for EIGHTY's driving distance? NOTHING. The first tech bump hurt EIGHTY relative to the others, and the second bump hurt him more. (If he can no longer find a ball similar to the PRE and must play something like X or V, then his actual driving distance decreases in real terms, and his relative disadvantage to the others grows even greater.)
What has the technological boom done for HUNDRED's driving distance? The first tech bump gave HUNDRED a disproportionate advantage over EIGHTY, compared to where they were before. (But the second Tech bump put him at a relative disadvantage to ONE-TWENTY.
What has the technological boom done for ONE-TWENTY? Relative to the state of the art before the advance, ONE-TWENTY HAS REAPED BIG BENEFITS over the other two.
So if PRE has gotten no benefit from the technological advances, and ONE-TWENTY has reaped huge benefits, then how can the USGA say that "there is no extra distance bonus for high swing speeds." Well, they can't at least not if they want to correctly state the current circumstance. But the reason that they do so is that their study was asking the WRONG QUESTIONS.
The USGA focused on how each particular ball behaved as swing speed increased without COMPARING HOW NEW BALLS BEHAVED COMPARED TO OLD BALLS. So, the USGA told EIGHTY, HUNDRED, AND ONE-TWENTY that if they ALL PLAY THE ProVIx, the distance difference between HUNDRED'S drive and EIGHTY's drive will be slightly larger than the distance difference between ONE-TWENTY's drive and HUNDRED's drive. But if I am EIGHTY that is of little comfort, because if I PLAY THE ProV1x then I take a huge hit to my distance compared to what it was before! I lose ground while they gain ground, because I don't swing fast enough for the ball to work for me at all. And it sure is heck seems like they have received a distance dividend that has passed me by.
_____________________________
The USGA's own numbers more than hint at this glitch in their study. From 90 to 100 mph, the distance increases 34 yards, or 3.4 yards per mph. As we go down in speed we will lose slightly more distance per mph (this is the corollary of gaining less distance as swingspeed goes up. So when we drop from 90 to 80 we lose more than 34 yards, and if we drop to 70 mph we lose at least 102 yards and probably a bit more.
According to the study, the distance of BALL A at 90 mph swing speed was about 220 yards. So for the 80 mph swing speed, the distance is less than 186 yards, total driving distance. For the 70 mph swinger, the total distance is less than 153 yards. AND THESE NUMBERS ARE PROBABLY TOO LONG, BECAUSE THE USGA HAS PROVEN THAT INCREASE IN DISTANCE PER INCREASE IN MPH TAPERS OFF AS THE NUMBERS GET HIGHER (THEREFORE THE DECREASE MUST GROW AS SWINGSPEED DECREASES.
Does anyone think that someone with an 80 mph or 70 mph swing speed has gotten any more distance out of the technology behind this ball? Even the golfer with a 90 mph swing speed is only driving it just over 220 yards total with this technologically advanced ball. Meanwhile those with swinging it 125 mph are hitting it 320. So a golfer with a swing speed of 90 (which used to be a respectable swing speed) is almost 100 yards behind those with faster swing speeds.
I don't have great numbers for the old balls, but I think I may have some somewhere and I'll try to find them later.
NOTE: EDITED TO CORRECT SOME ERRORS IN THE NUMBERS.
David,
Forgive me if there are later posts that modify this post. I understand the distinction that you are making about where the "disproportionate" gain is. The issue I have is that your assertions are both vague and general. You don't specify what before and after balls you are comparing when you say the slopes of the lines are different. Nor do you quantify the specific difference in the slopes. You imply that they are significant, but what is significant? I'll ask you the same as I asked Garland, do you have any controlled study that you've seen that demonstrates the difference in slopes?
I'd also question your statement (that I've highlighted in red above) that you took a huge hit in distance going to a Pro V1. How huge a hit did you take? What ball were you using before? I've never heard anyone assert before that they lost distance with the Pro V1.
-
Lou,
I don't see bifurcation as a solution because the distance problem has trickled down into those who are good golfers but by no means good enough for a tour. You have low to mid-single digit handicappers with a large range of swing speeds and therefore a huge distance gap between them. Look at the numbers above. The distance could easily be 60 to 80 yards off the tee for those with the same index. It is very difficult to build a course that adequately interests and challenges golfers with large disparities in how far they hit the ball, and that problem will not change with bifurcation.
More importantly, I think your base assumption -- that slower swingers would necessarily be hurt by a a rolled back ball -- is incorrect. slower swingers weren't helped much distance-wise by these new balls and there is no reason that the ball couldn't be rolled back so that aren't hurt much.
I don't get your last paragraph at all. Courses function better when the distance gap between long and short is more in line with what it has been historically, prior to this latest techno jump for some (but not for others.) So it is a matter of balance. All games have all sorts of balances and for the game to remain fun and interesting for all, it is important to keep it in balance.
DM,
In reality I am not a big fan of bifurcation either, though I support it because I believe there is a problem and it appears to be the least bad solution. My view of golf is perhaps a bit more expansive as I think the economics of this sport are critical and unique, and the constituency very diverse. In my opinion, it is impossible to design and maintain a course that's suitable to all, and I see no major problem in building the Santa Anitas and the Sherwoods of this world.
There is no question that the current ball and club technology rewards swing speed exponentially, and, in my mind at least, that it would be better if the advantage was more arithmetic. I've been complaining that as I've gotten older the atrophy of my body has been much faster than the advancement of golf techonlogy available to me. Those young guys I used to keep up with and even outdrive on occasion are now hiting it a Walmart further ahead of me. It would be better if when I am playing with them that we would all use the bifurcated "elite" ball, and I suspect that I could shame them into using it on the basis of being more sporting. But if these guys want to play homerun derby and are willing to make certain allocations to me, I might just let them pull the new ProV1X. I can see how bifurcation might make things a bit dicey for the tournament committee at local and club competitions (my solution: championship flight plays the "elite", everyone else plays whatever they want).
As to the short game comments, you are probably right, technology has not had that big of an impact, though perhaps the long putter may have given the less able putter a new advantage. Maybe I am grasping at an excuse to slow greens down a bit and maybe introduce just a tad more contour.
-
Melvyn,
I will only dress like this if I can drink as much as was consumed during the period as well...
-
As I noted above, I made some changes to the above, and apologize for those writing long posts to correct those errors. I am sure you will be able to find other errors though.
__________________________________________________________________
Bryan, I didn't address what should be done, but if you've followed me thus far then you probably have a pretty good idea of where I am going.
The problem is that USGA is essentially encouraging the manufacturers to build golf balls that pass the distance test yet have very steep increases in distance gained per incremental increase in swing speed. So when their professionals swing faster, they reap a large (but slightly diminishing) benefit for each mph increase. Unfortunately, this means that these balls lose at least the same distance for every step down in swing speed. So while these balls are great for fast swing speeds, they are dogs for the rest of us.
I really can't get to into it now but it seems that they need to not only set a max limit at a certain speed, but also place a control on the slope of the increased distance per incremental increase in club head speed. This could be accomplished easily enough by setting distance limits at speeds, or by setting one limit and then also setting a maximum slope (the same thing really) And according to the study you site, the manufacturers couldn't possibly go above this max slope as swing speeds increase.
This would get at both the absolute distance problem and the relative gap between long and short.
I agree that you could regulate both the max distance and the slope. It would be relatively easy to set the targets, as you say. But, it would be harder to specify the testing procedure. For instance, what launch conditions would you propose for the conformance test? For all launch conditions? What club would you specify? The engineering and manufacture of a conforming ball would, I think, be an enormous task.
-
Lou,
I don't see bifurcation as a solution because the distance problem has trickled down into those who are good golfers but by no means good enough for a tour. You have low to mid-single digit handicappers with a large range of swing speeds and therefore a huge distance gap between them. Look at the numbers above. The distance could easily be 60 to 80 yards off the tee for those with the same index. It is very difficult to build a course that adequately interests and challenges golfers with large disparities in how far they hit the ball, and that problem will not change with bifurcation.
More importantly, I think your base assumption -- that slower swingers would necessarily be hurt by a a rolled back ball -- is incorrect. slower swingers weren't helped much distance-wise by these new balls and there is no reason that the ball couldn't be rolled back so that aren't hurt much.
I don't get your last paragraph at all. Courses function better when the distance gap between long and short is more in line with what it has been historically, prior to this latest techno jump for some (but not for others.) So it is a matter of balance. All games have all sorts of balances and for the game to remain fun and interesting for all, it is important to keep it in balance.
So, can you be more specific about what you think the ideal compression target should be so that the slow speed swinger and high speed swinger of the same handicap can play the same course from the same tees and interact with the architecture in the same way? If 60 to 80 yards is too much of a delta, what delta would you like to regulate between, say a 80 mph and a 120 mph swing speed? Do you have any factual evidence of what the delta was in the '90's or earlier?
Anecdotally, I played competitive amateur golf as far back as the '60's and as far as I recall the long hitters were significantly (30 to 40 yards) longer than I was, and my swing speed was a bit above average in those times (when I was younger and stronger).
-
"With the e+ series, it's about analyzing your ball's trajectory and picking which e+ series ball is going to improve your trajectory in order to maximize your distance," Sowell said.
• e5+ Designed to increase spin for players who have trouble getting the ball in the air or who hit shots that fly too low. Bridgestone says this is the only two-piece, Urethane-cover ball on the market. That spin-generating Urethane cover should not only translate into control around the green, but should also give more lift on tee shots and long irons."
Bryan,
Most of my search turns up low compression balls for slow swingers. This would be one reason a slow swinger would lose distance when changing to the ProV. The above quote from the Golf Magazine website reporting on Bridgestone balls shows that at least they believe distance can be increased for the slow swinger by using the higher spin ball. That would definitely imply the plots would cross as I asserted above.
I will look more for concrete data as time permits.
-
Bryan,
It appears your quoted study is irrelevant to what we are discussing here. It is a comparison of slow swinging tour pros with fast swinging tour pros.
It conveniently neglects to point out that if you plot distance against swing speed for the high spinning ball and distance against swing speed for the low spinning ball, that the lines cross. They cross at a point well below the slow swinging tour pro's swing speed.
......................
I thought it was relevant to David's original point. I see he has clarified his point for me.
It does prove that there is no disproportionate gain for the modern ball as swing speed increases. It does not prove/disprove that there was a disproportionate gain between for high swing speeds between a 1990's ball vs a 2000's ball.
Do you have any quantitative study that you could point me to, or post here, that demonstrates the crossing lines theory that you state above? Or is this just your anecdotal feeling? I am prepared to accept that this is the case, but I've never seen a study that demonstrates it. I assume that your reference to high spinning and low spinning balls are to the 1990's Tour Balata and Pro V1 respectively. Or did you have some other balls in mind? Not all balls in the 90's or in the '00's are uniformly high spinning or low spinning.
Brian,
One of my major sources for information like this is Tom Wishon's The Search for the Perfect Golf Club. Unfortunately, I don't have it available now.
You are right. I am referring to Tour Balata vs ProV1. Tom Paul has reported on this website that the USGA told him that tour pros would lose approximately 25 yards if they were forced back to the Tour Balata.
I will do some searching to see if I can come up with more concrete data.
Garland,
I have Wishon's book sitting right here, and I don't recall any quantitative information of that sort in it. Let me know where I should look in it.
I wouldn't be surprised if the tour players would lose 25 yards if forced back to a tour balata and they used their current swings and drivers. I suspect (without proof) that they would alter their swings and their driver heads and shafts to reduce the spin of the balata balls to mitigate the distance loss. The fact that they'd lose 25 yards, of course, doesn't speak to the slope of the distance/swing speed line for the balata balls.
-
Lou,
Getting old is a bitch isn't it. ;) I'd suggest that maybe you need to limit your competition to other older gentlemen. It'd be easier and less disruptive than trying to further regulate or roll back or bifurcate the ball for everyone. ;D
I don't think that David and Garland are suggesting that the modern ball is exponentially longer. It is linear, just maybe at a different slope than the balata balls of yore.
-
Garland,
That's EXACTLY what we saw when we did our USGA/R&A ball testing. My wife Laura with her 70mph driver swing speed GAINED distance when using the rolled back ball.
I'm around 95mph, and I lost about 5 yards (who cares), but I liked the additional spin on the ball, which ironically was a Bridgestone-made ball that was roughly the same as thier e5 line.
(The USGA guys said they had samples from all the manufacturers, but we only played Bridgestones).
-
Garland,
That's EXACTLY what we saw when we did our USGA/R&A ball testing. My wife Laura with her 70mph driver swing speed GAINED distance when using the rolled back ball.
I'm around 95mph, and I lost about 5 yards (who cares), but I liked the additional spin on the ball, which ironically was a Bridgestone-made ball that was roughly the same as thier e5 line.
(The USGA guys said they had samples from all the manufacturers, but we only played Bridgestones).
Well at the end of the day, no surprise there. The sample provided by Bridgestone was basically a high-spin ball for low-clubhead-speed players. Sure enough the 70mph swinger got more carry, the 95mph got more spin and I'm guessing it spun way, way too much and didn't work worth a darn for the 120mph+ swingers. Sort of proves they're not just blowing smoke with their various models and are truly able to dial in the characterstiics needed by different players.
So we just need to make a rule that the PGA Tour guys all have to play pink Precept Lady balls. Problem solved.
-
For whatever it's worth, I hit some drives, during a round yesterday, with a a Titleist Professional 90. I regret to report to Tom Paul that not a single one of them had the characteristic low launch, rising trajectory that he remembers. I think that trajectory is a function of a descending swing path as well as the spin rate of the ball.
Oh, and I saw no appreciable difference to a modern ball in slicing or hooking.
-
What has the USGA done in the past?
When balls started jumping off the driver too fast they put in the initial velocity test.
When balls that met the initial velocity test started to go too far, they put in the overall distance standard.
When balls were designed to vary their spin rate disproportionately with club loft, the USGA should have put in a spin regulation standard. (I know, I know, Bryan, where have you heard that before? ;) )
They did not react with a new standard as they did in the past, and things have gotten out of hand.
EDIT: Actually, I believe this brings us back around to where the thread started. Clearly, when the Strata came out that was the game changer, the patent was in place, and the USGA had the problem of regulating against a patent with the money invested in R&D that led to it. Therefore, the USGA's conundrum.
-
I think of you as more in terms of vaseline on the face. Spin rate disproportionate to club loft sounds so much more scientific, albeit the use of disproportionate adds confusion rather than clarity in this usage. We've already had a disproportionate amount of debate on what is disproportionate in ball performance. Maye an alternative term would be good.
-
http://www.oneplanegolfswing.com/oneplanemembers/golfequipment/launch_monitor_numbers.jsp
Ideal Numbers:
Ball Speed Launch Angle
Back Spin (rpm's)
Carry Distance
170 mph 11.5-15.5+* 2000-2400 289 yards
160 mph 12-16+* 2200-2650 271 yards
150 mph 13-16.5+* 2300-2800 252 yards
140 mph 14-17+* 2350-2950 233 yards
130 mph 14.5-17* 2400-3100 215 yards
120 mph 15-17* 2500-3300 196 yards
-
I think of you as more in terms of vaseline on the face.
Out of context, this is perhaps one of the strangest sentences I've ever read on this forum.
:D
-
Bryan,
I do not lose sleep over how far the pros are hitting the ball. I am certainly not interested enough to study ball statistics in great detail. My comments are largely anecdotal and were not solely concerning the ball. The combination of improvements in technique, experience, fitness, nutrition, CLUB TECHNOLOGY, and the ball have ALL conspired to give the fast swing speed golfers a disproportional distance advantage. I would never consider penalizing people for seeking to improve, but buying the game off the rack may give me some pause in the relatively narrow category of the highest levels of competitive golf.
Whether the advantage is exponential or geometric vs. arithmetic or constant, I can only say that my experience suggests that folks who swing at 110+ mph gain a proportionally greater distance from these factors than those who swing at 100 and 90. I suppose that these impressions could be validated or rejected by a huge study using Iron Byron and varying the ball, club (heads, shafts, length, etc.), wind, temperature, humidity, altitude, etc. On the other hand, we can just look at a Tiger Woods and a Fred Funk and draw our own conclusions. I think that the increase in distance as a percentage is considerably less for the slower swinger, but perhaps I am wrong.
As to playing with my age peers, not too many of them seem to want to play anything longer than 6400 yards. I still like the challenge of hitting all the clubs in my bag, and get more satisfaction shooting 82 from the back tees than in the mid-70s from the seniors'.
-
Garland,
I have Wishon's book sitting right here, and I don't recall any quantitative information of that sort in it. Let me know where I should look in it.
...
You are right, you won't find quantitative information it it. Quantitative information does not sell. However you will find qualitative information in it similar to
"While slower swinging golfers need the spin to keep the ball in the air longer, the faster swingers out there would lose a ton of distance..."
from http://www.oneplanegolfswing.com/oneplanemembers/golfequipment/launch_monitor_numbers.jsp
-
I think of you as more in terms of vaseline on the face.
Out of context, this is perhaps one of the strangest sentences I've ever read on this forum.
:D
Joe,
Funny you should say that. Are you not the guy who posted once that you sniff your divots to determine the alkaline content of the soil? I have never forgotten that one.
Regards,
-
Bryan wrote:
David,
Forgive me if there are later posts that modify this post. I understand the distinction that you are making about where the "disproportionate" gain is. The issue I have is that your assertions are both vague and general. You don't specify what before and after balls you are comparing when you say the slopes of the lines are different. Nor do you quantify the specific difference in the slopes. You imply that they are significant, but what is significant? I'll ask you the same as I asked Garland, do you have any controlled study that you've seen that demonstrates the difference in slopes?
Unfortunately I do not have specific data for the old balls or the lower swing speeds. I recall seeing some or figuring some out at some point before but don't have it handy now. That is one of the real frustrations here . . . The USGA has all the info, but they have failed analyze that info in a meaningful way. (If they have, then they haven't provided us with with results.)
I don't have an Iron Byron, but a few years I did a test once using what I will call The Latex Lynn, a "golf machine" with a swing-speed in the mid 90 mph range. The Latex Lynn hit 50 drives on a launch monitor, half with the ProV1x and half with the Tour Balata (I intermixed and teed the balls) and I recorded the results, then threw out worst 5 from each group (the Latex Lynn is not quite as consistent as the Iron Byron.) On The Latex Lynn the ProV1x was shorter on average (around 3 or 4 yards, if I recall correctly) than the Tour Balata. (This was the case even though the Balatas were probably at least six or seven years old.)
I'd also question your statement (that I've highlighted in red above) that you took a huge hit in distance going to a Pro V1. How huge a hit did you take? What ball were you using before? I've never heard anyone assert before that they lost distance with the Pro V1.
That was a mistake on my part. "I" was writing from the perspective of "EIGHTY" (believe it or not my swingspeed is higher than that) and I probably should have written ProV1x. As for me, I do take a noticable hit with the ProV1x even compared to the ProV1 but I could not quantify it. As for the ProV, I don't think I've gained any distance (and possibly lost a bit) but cannot be certain. Anecdotally, I hit the Balata further than the ProV1x as well, but did not difference the amount.
I agree that you could regulate both the max distance and the slope. It would be relatively easy to set the targets, as you say. But, it would be harder to specify the testing procedure. For instance, what launch conditions would you propose for the conformance test? For all launch conditions? What club would you specify?
It would be hard to pick the procedures, but no harder than now. I am no expert on the advantages and disadvantages of the various options-- I am neither an engineer nor a scientist, and am looking at this from a theoretical perspective only. I'd have to speak to some engineers and scientists to figure it out. But whatever method was chosen, I think that also regulating the slope would go a long ways toward making the test procedures much harder to get around. Of the top of my head I would tend toward focusing on initial velocity and "optimal" spin rate and launch angle rather than trying to recreate a shot with a particular club. For example, the USGA should tell Titleist that it is going to send ProV1z flying at X mph and optimium spin and launch angle conditions (whatever spin and launch angle maximizes distance) and that the ProV1z better not fly more than Y yards or the USGA will reject it.
The engineering and manufacture of a conforming ball would, I think, be an enormous task.
I am not so sure. If we use past performance results to set our limits, then it is not exactly as if we are asking them to reinvent the wheel. And what I like best about this approach is does not dictate exactly what the companies should do, but gives them an incentive to compete. They can engineer and manufacture new products to their hearts' content, so long as they comply. That way, the manufacturers can still try to sell us new product every year and still pretend that their brand is significantly better than the others. Also, it may not be possible for a single ball to hug the slope line from the beginning to end, so manufacturers might have an incentive to build balls optimized to particular swing speeds (some are sort of heading this way, at least in marketing.)
So, can you be more specific about what you think the ideal compression target should be so that the slow speed swinger and high speed swinger of the same handicap can play the same course from the same tees and interact with the architecture in the same way? If 60 to 80 yards is too much of a delta, what delta would you like to regulate between, say a 80 mph and a 120 mph swing speed? Do you have any factual evidence of what the delta was in the '90's or earlier?
Anecdotally, I played competitive amateur golf as far back as the '60's and as far as I recall the long hitters were significantly (30 to 40 yards) longer than I was, and my swing speed was a bit above average in those times (when I was younger and stronger).
I cannot. I don't have the data. But it ought to be easy enough for the USGA to do by looking at how the past balls performed at different swing speeds. Big hitters have always had a big advantage and that is how it should be, but the goal should be twofold: 1) Push back on the big hitters enough so that they fit on courses of reasonable length, and 2) regulate the relative advantage of the big hitters back to something more in line with what it has been historically.
I don't see it as being that complicated, provided the data is available.
I don't think that David and Garland are suggesting that the modern ball is exponentially longer. It is linear, just maybe at a different slope than the balata balls of yore.
I am NOT suggesting that any particular modern ball is exponentially longer, but think that if we took looked a theoretical "OPTIMAL BALL" which represents each "state of the art" ball (distance wise) at every swing speed, then we would see something that might look like exponential distance gain, if only for a limited range of swing speeds.
Here is a chart I created a few years ago to demonstrate what I mean. The small straight lines represent slopes of particular ball types, while , the purple curved line represents our defined OPTIMAL BALL (an amalgamation made of each best ball at every swing speed.) One can see how that "exponential distance gain" could exist even if not produced by a single ball. This approach makes more sense to me, because the reality is that our swing speeds are fairly constant, and when comparing relative advantage we ought to be realistic and use the best ball at every swing speed. THIS IS FOR DEMONSTRATION PURPOSES ONLY. I don't know that this circumstance exists, but given how steep the slope is at high speeds for balls like the the BALL A above, I'd be willing to bet the that slope of the OPTIMAL BALL gets steeper in this range. theoretical, but something that the USGA could easily test and confirm (or disprove) if the so chose. [Note that for simplicity my slope lines do not taper off, but the concept is the same even with tapered slope lines.]
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/Misc/hypograph.jpg?t=1256322669)
_________________________________________________________________
Garland,
That's EXACTLY what we saw when we did our USGA/R&A ball testing. My wife Laura with her 70mph driver swing speed GAINED distance when using the rolled back ball.
I'm around 95mph, and I lost about 5 yards (who cares), but I liked the additional spin on the ball, which ironically was a Bridgestone-made ball that was roughly the same as thier e5 line.
Dan
Now THAT is what I am talking about! The impact of regulating the ball does not have to kill shorter hitters, and it may even help the slowest ones out a bit.
What is better for the game in the long run . . . . building balls that don't help anyone but those that already hit drives 330 yards or building balls that might give the 70 mph swinger a little extra pop?
-
Bryan,
Here is the data.
Low spin ball - actual data from a modern tour ball from Golf Magazine
http://www.golf.com/golf/equipment/article/0,28136,1878631,00.html
Swing speed 80 100 120
Spin rate 2000 2200 2500
Distance from http://probablegolfinstruction.com/PGI%20Newsletter/news05-02-04.htm
182 247 306
I doubt anyone has data from Tour Balata that I can find so make some spin rate data up for demonstration purposes, hypothetical ball
Swing speed 80 100 120
Spin Rate 3600 3900 4200
Distance from http://probablegolfinstruction.com/PGI%20Newsletter/news05-02-04.htm
187 248 297
As you can see, the plots will cross.
-
I think of you as more in terms of vaseline on the face.
Out of context, this is perhaps one of the strangest sentences I've ever read on this forum.
:D
Joe,
Funny you should say that. Are you not the guy who posted once that you sniff your divots to determine the alkaline content of the soil? I have never forgotten that one.
Regards,
And your point would be...?
:)
-
"For whatever it's worth, I hit some drives, during a round yesterday, with a a Titleist Professional 90. I regret to report to Tom Paul that not a single one of them had the characteristic low launch, rising trajectory that he remembers. I think that trajectory is a function of a descending swing path as well as the spin rate of the ball."
Bryan:
For starters, do you have any idea at all what MPH you were hitting those Pro 90s with? And if you think you know, may I ask how you know?
Regarding that low launch trajectory you referred to that I mentioned, all I can tell you is I am old enough to distinctly remember it but only from golfers who had very high MPH swing speeds. One should also keep in mind that that trajectory I remember was also pretty much was from the age of the persimmon driver.
-
I have had the opportunity over the years to speak at length about I&B tech matters with some within the USGA Tech Center including at great length with former Tech Director Frank Thomas.
I'm not completely certain (I am also certainly not a physicist or scientist) but I do remember asking if there was data available that might give us some indication of comparative distance (and trajectory) data from the age of the much higher spinning (balata) balls. I recall that there is not any data like that at least not the way we might want it or be able to utilize it to compare todays golf balls against the much higher RPM softer balls.
I think I recall that Thomas mentioned that the ODS pretty much used 109MPH as basically a "pass/fail" factor or protocol to test for golf ball conformance. I don't know that they even bothered to test the distance and trajectory characteristics of any type ball at either lower or higher MPH swing speeds. The whole deal was basically a "pass/fail" test and 109 was the MPH protocol used to do it.
-
What I believe I really learned speaking with Thomas, however, is what he said about the way it used to be for the Tech Center, and perhaps still is to some extent.
What he said was that new stuff was coming down the I&B R&D pipeline from the manufacturers all the time and the inherent problem was that it was pretty hard for the Tech Center (and perhaps even the manufacturers) to tell what all the ramifications of it might be (even in distance and trajectory et al) with the existing ODS tests. For this reason, sometimes balls and equipment might fail the conformance tests for reasons that were not even in the I&B Rules and Regs at the time. Such things as COR and how to define the measurement of the distance between grooves (straight up or on an axis) are two really good examples that did create lawsuits and conformance agreement problems between the USGA/R&A and the manufacturers.
Essentially, THIS INHERENT PROBLEM was the very reason Thomas created what was referred to as "Optimization Testing." It was actually a test (test machine or test process?) created by the USGA that could be given to all the manufacturers so they could ALL try better to get on the same page during and manufacturer R&D and USGA conformance testing.
My recollection is that the USGA rolled this "Optimiztion Test" out to big fanfare and expectation but for whatever their reasons the manufacturers refused to accept it, and so it was shelved and never implemented.
-
David and Garland,
Interesting responses. No time now, but I'll respond later, including the results of a Balata Bryan test.
Tom,
Swing speed was in the mid to upper 90's - not a high swing speed by any means.
-
"Tom,
Swing speed was in the mid to upper 90's - not a high swing speed by any means."
Bryan:
From all my observations from playing all that tournament golf back in those days, the only guys who could really produce that kind of trajectory I mentioned (with particularly drivers) were the players who had very high swing speeds. The rest of us couldn't produce that trajectory with a driver with those old high spinning balata balls. At least that was my observation over quite a number of years.
Today, virtually none of the highest swing speed players produce that old trajectory----quite the opposite in fact. I've been told that the difference between that old trajectory and the new one at the SAME MPH (let's call it either the old ODS MPH at 109 or the new one at 120) that the difference in carry distance between the old trajectory and the new one can be around 30+ yards in neutral conditions!
This might be somewhat analagous to that old diorama they used to have at the Tech Center that compared the difference in carry distances with two significantly different trajectories both into a certain set speed headwind and the same downwind.
-
The Bobby Jones instructional films (the ones with the celebrities) usually ended with him hitting a ball at the camera.The rising trajectory is pretty easy to see.
-
Jeff:
That's a very good observation. Those shots coming right at the camera sure are noticeably low at first and then rising. As you know Jones could really hit it (he obviously had a very high swing speed for his era and those balls back then were probably both very soft and very high spinning).
-
Jeff:
That's a very good observation. Those shots coming right at the camera sure are noticeably low at first and then rising. As you know Jones could really hit it (he obviously had a very high swing speed for his era and those balls back then were probably both very soft and very high spinning).
I'm sure you've been around when strong players get their swings monitored.It's amazing to watch how far they can carry a golf ball.
True Temper was very early in collecting this data.A friend over there had a lot of players' info plotted.I remember Vijay Singh's "perfect" trajectory was super-human.Singh's launch angle/spin off the club of a "normal" player would probably carry about 30 feet--with a tail wind.
-
Jeff:
Actually, I've never seen any golfers during any of this computer or testing monitoring. All I know one would probably categorize as "empirical" or "empiricism"-----eg what I remember so well as the fascinating trajectory of high swing speed players with those old balls and equipment compared to the trajectory they all pretty much have today. It's like night compared to day it's so different.
I know it all from all the tournament golf I played and officiated throughout this entire timespan going from the mid-1980s up to today.
-
"I don't have an Iron Byron, but a few years I did a test once using what I will call The Latex Lynn, a "golf machine" with a swing-speed in the mid 90 mph range. The Latex Lynn hit 50 drives on a launch monitor, half with the ProV1x and half with the Tour Balata (I intermixed and teed the balls) and I recorded the results, then threw out worst 5 from each group (the Latex Lynn is not quite as consistent as the Iron Byron.)"
I just noticed the above remark on a post on this thread. You know, I've basically been a supporter of the USGA and its test center we know as the multi-million dollar USGA Tech Center that seems to do most of the best regulatory conformance I&B testing in the world today but if for some odd reason they don't have or aren't using this "Latex Lynn" golf machine mentioned above, I'm afraid I might have to reconsider my support for the USGA and all that they do for golf in the area of I&B testing.
I mean if that small segment of golfers who hit the ball really hard and far have the "Iron Bryon" machine representing them at the USGA Tech Center at 120 mph don't the rest of us need the "Latex Lynn" machine representing us at swing speeds far more realisitic to our pathetically slow swings compared to those hybrid animals on the PGA TOUR?
And if the USGA is actually too cheap or too myopic to invest in the "Latex Lynn" machine for realistic and real world distance testing data is there any reason one should not conclude that the brilliant contributors to GOLFCLUBATLAS.com on threads like this one should not make I&B policy for the USGA and golf in the future? If not what in the world are those people in Far Hills thinking anyway? ???
-
Bryan,
Here is the data.
Low spin ball - actual data from a modern tour ball from Golf Magazine
http://www.golf.com/golf/equipment/article/0,28136,1878631,00.html
Swing speed 80 100 120
Spin rate 2000 2200 2500
Distance from http://probablegolfinstruction.com/PGI%20Newsletter/news05-02-04.htm
182 247 306
I doubt anyone has data from Tour Balata that I can find so make some spin rate data up for demonstration purposes, hypothetical ball
Swing speed 80 100 120
Spin Rate 3600 3900 4200
Distance from http://probablegolfinstruction.com/PGI%20Newsletter/news05-02-04.htm
187 248 297
As you can see, the plots will cross.
Garland,
I was hoping that you knew of some real data. I'm sure we can all make up hypothetical values to prove the point. BTW the second site that you cite is using a mathematical model to calculate distance. I'm not sure I believe such models unless they are supported by field tests. It's a very complicated model to develop. The first site was interesting. The launch angles were sub-optimal; I wonder what the spin rates would be with more optimal launch angles. I have never been able to get spin rates down around 2,000 rpm in testing myself on launch monitors, although hittiing it low helps reduce the spin.
-
David,
I agree that it is possible that the lines would cross, but I'd like to see some data that prove it and also help us quantify the effect if it exists. Sadly, it looks like no one has this data. Perhaps the USGA could create the data if they still had, or could obtain some balata balls. Have you ever talked to the Tech Centre about what you see as the issue, rather than just criticizing their lack of understanding of the issue?
I did conduct my own Latex Lynn test at the end of last week - let's call it the Balata Bryan. I used a Pro V1x and a Titleist Tour Balata on a launch monitor at my local golf megastore. Here are the results:
Pro V1x Tour Balata
Club Head Speed 94 96
Ball Speed 139 136
Launch Angle 12.4 12.3
Spin Rate 3359 3540
Carry distance 233 226
The smash factor was better on the V1x, I guess the result of more on centre hit, or possibly a higher COR for the modern ball or maybe the Balata is a little dead with age.
The spin with Balata Bryan and either ball is higher than optimal. The Balata spins higher than the V1x, but not as much higher as I expected.
The carry distance difference is 2.3 yards per mph. That's a little lower than the Quintavalla numbers for the modern ball. Perhaps the mathematical model of carry distance on the launch monitor I was on is not quite right or my launch conditions were sufficiently sub-optimal to make a difference.
My results for the V1x are on the low end of the Quintavalla chart but provide one point of reference. Why don't you continue the test with the "Long Ball" machine (isn't Robert your resident long ball hitter in SoCal?). That would give you two points on the line for the Balata ball - not perfect, but better than our current conjecture.
In your quest to regulate, I notice that the chart you provided earlier shows a variety of slopes as possible for different ball, so, I guess you'd want to regulate based on the delta between say the Tour Balata and the Pro V1x, rather than between say the Pinnacle and the Pro V1x.
-
And if the USGA is actually too cheap or too myopic to invest in the "Latex Lynn" machine for realistic and real world distance testing data is there any reason one should not conclude that the brilliant contributors to GOLFCLUBATLAS.com on threads like this one should not make I&B policy for the USGA and golf in the future? If not what in the world are those people in Far Hills thinking anyway? ???
I bet that Lynn Shackelford would gladly consult with the USGA, though his rate might be upwards $500/hr plus expenses. And though "Latex Lynn" is as smooth and consitent as advertised, I suspect the average swing speed on the driver is somewhat south of that stated.
Possibly like you, I don't need a bunch of data and extrapolated statistics to correct my lying eyes. There are bunkers being carried with 3-metalwoods today that I could barely reach with a solid persimon Citation driver on a Titleist Professional and some roll. When the big boys are feathering a 3 metal to reach #10 at Riviera, whatever the causes of such distance, if maintaining the integrity of the game through time is important, perhaps something shold be done. There is certainly precedence in other sports to control the equipment at different levels of competition. For the vast majority of us it is not an issue relative to how we play the game, so it does not make a lot of sense to me to apply the cure to the unafflicted.
-
Bryan,
Here is the data.
Low spin ball - actual data from a modern tour ball from Golf Magazine
http://www.golf.com/golf/equipment/article/0,28136,1878631,00.html
Swing speed 80 100 120
Spin rate 2000 2200 2500
Distance from http://probablegolfinstruction.com/PGI%20Newsletter/news05-02-04.htm
182 247 306
I doubt anyone has data from Tour Balata that I can find so make some spin rate data up for demonstration purposes, hypothetical ball
Swing speed 80 100 120
Spin Rate 3600 3900 4200
Distance from http://probablegolfinstruction.com/PGI%20Newsletter/news05-02-04.htm
187 248 297
As you can see, the plots will cross.
Garland,
I was hoping that you knew of some real data. I'm sure we can all make up hypothetical values to prove the point. BTW the second site that you cite is using a mathematical model to calculate distance. I'm not sure I believe such models unless they are supported by field tests. It's a very complicated model to develop. The first site was interesting. The launch angles were sub-optimal; I wonder what the spin rates would be with more optimal launch angles. I have never been able to get spin rates down around 2,000 rpm in testing myself on launch monitors, although hittiing it low helps reduce the spin.
Bryan,
Are you saying the when the second reference says "My model agrees very well with experimental results" that you don't believe the author?
So what's not real about the data? The only thing missing is knowledge of real numbers for a balata ball. Given the numbers, it is clear that it is no problem to get the lines to cross.
As I indicated earlier, Tom Wishon and others have been making the qualitative statements that indicated the lines cross. I have little doubt that they developed that qualitative assessment from quantitative information.
-
Bryan, thanks for your response. I suspect we are fairly close to on the same page on this issue.
I don't have any more balatas to continue the experiments, at least not any that haven't been hit to death. As I said I did this test a number of years ago.
Why did you focus on carry distance? How were the total distance numbers? If I recall correctly the Pro V1x had a higher percentage of total distance as carry, as compared to the Balata. At least with the Latex Lynn.
How big a sample did you use? Surely you are not so consistent that one hit with each sufficed? If you used a large enough sample then I am surprised that your swing speed differed between the two balls. I believe the Latex Lynn was set for a few mph less than yours (about 92 or 93 for both balls if I recall correctly (I don't have the complete data in front of me.) So that might explain a bit of the difference in result. My Balatas were a few years fresher as well.
2.3 yards per MPH is a LOT lower than the numbers in the USGA study. How did you come up with this number? Not sure why you conclude that perhaps your launch monitor wasn't working quite right regarding this number?
Did you test the Pro V1 as well Pro V1x?
___________________________________
As to showing how the lines actually cross, it would be terrific to have a wider range of data from a wider range of balls, and the USGA could easily produce such data whether or not they had Balatas. (Surely they have old statistics from the balata.) They also have their balls they requested from the manufacturers and they also have a wide range of balls produced today.
But one can see how different balls have different slopes even from the narrow range of state of the art tour balls tested in their own study! Take a look at Figure 3 in the Quintavalla Study, and focus on Ball A and Ball C. One can see that at 90 mph Ball C flies farther than Ball A but what appears to be around 4 or 5 yards. But at 125 Miles Per hour, Ball A flies farther than Ball C by what appears to be about 8 or 9 yards. Thus, even over the 90+ mph swing speeds tested, there is a significant difference in distance produced between these two balls as swing speed increases. The slopes seem to cross somewhere a bit above 100 mph swing speed. All else being equal, those below that point would benefit distance wise from Ball C compared to Ball A, and all those above this point would benefit distancewise from Ball A compared to Ball C. The difference is quite pronounced by the time we get up to 125, and given that Ball C's slope appears to be dropping off relatively substantially by this point it is probably that the gap will be even greater as swing speeds increase further.
I've tried to isolate these two lines in Photoshop to make the point more evident . . .
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/USGA-Figure-3.jpg?t=1256578931)
Conversely if we continue the cap backward with slower swingspeeds, one can see that the gap distance gap of Ball C over Ball A will increase as swing speed slows. (This based on the conclusion of the study that the slope will flatten as swing speed increases.
___________________________________________
I have not spoken with the USGA Tech guys to tell them where their study falls short. I would be shocked if the USGA science guys aren't well aware of the limits of their study. If they aren't then the USGA is hiring fifth rate science guys who wouldn't understand an explanation anyway. Surely this is more an indication of the policy approach at the USGA rather than a misunderstanding in the lab. The USGA had the science guys narrowly design a study to get the result the USGA wanted, and then the USGA spun it a manner that allowed them to tell us what the USGA wants us to hear. Frankly, all those reports read like lame apologies and excuses to me; as if the USGA has been putting out fires through P.R., and trying to quell justified criticism about how they have dropped the ball (literally and figuratively) when it comes to keeping this technology in check.
If not, then the USGA and their science guys are blind if they truly believe that this technology has not benefited big hitters more than short hitters, and a phone call from me will not change that. I am neither science guy nor miracle worker and cannot make the blind see. I did not even stay at a Holiday Inn last night.
____________________________________
As for how I would come up with a standard, as I said I am not a science guy so I cannot say for certain. I think I would base it generally on past ratios of long and short in actual play, however. I would surely not use balls like the Pinnacle that, whatever their length, were considered too inferior in other respects for top long hitters to use. They wouldn't provide any indication of the past ratio between long and short, because longer, better players refused to use them! (Arguably, a case could be made for using these types of balls on the low (slow swing) end of the scale because recreational golfers with slow swing speeds were using these balls. However, I suspect that there wasn't much distance benefit from these balls to slower swingers anyway. Or at least least the distance benefit was greatly exaggerated.)
-
Bryan,
Here is the data.
Low spin ball - actual data from a modern tour ball from Golf Magazine
http://www.golf.com/golf/equipment/article/0,28136,1878631,00.html
Swing speed 80 100 120
Spin rate 2000 2200 2500
Distance from http://probablegolfinstruction.com/PGI%20Newsletter/news05-02-04.htm
182 247 306
I doubt anyone has data from Tour Balata that I can find so make some spin rate data up for demonstration purposes, hypothetical ball
Swing speed 80 100 120
Spin Rate 3600 3900 4200
Distance from http://probablegolfinstruction.com/PGI%20Newsletter/news05-02-04.htm
187 248 297
As you can see, the plots will cross.
Garland,
I was hoping that you knew of some real data. I'm sure we can all make up hypothetical values to prove the point. BTW the second site that you cite is using a mathematical model to calculate distance. I'm not sure I believe such models unless they are supported by field tests. It's a very complicated model to develop. The first site was interesting. The launch angles were sub-optimal; I wonder what the spin rates would be with more optimal launch angles. I have never been able to get spin rates down around 2,000 rpm in testing myself on launch monitors, although hittiing it low helps reduce the spin.
Bryan,
Are you saying the when the second reference says "My model agrees very well with experimental results" that you don't believe the author? I missed that reference to experimental data. Point taken.
So what's not real about the data? The only thing missing is knowledge of real numbers for a balata ball. Uh, yeah! Isn't that the critical piece of information that we're looking for. The point I'm trying to get at is that it's all fine and good to whinge that the ball needs to be rolled back. It's another to be specific about what it should be rolled back to. Saying roll it back by 10 or 15% just doesn't cut it from a regulatory or policing point of view. So, having the old data is critical if you're trying to achieve some roll back to some specific point and technology. Given the numbers, it is clear that it is no problem to get the lines to cross.
As I indicated earlier, Tom Wishon and others have been making the qualitative statements that indicated the lines cross. I have little doubt that they developed that qualitative assessment from quantitative information. Perhaps so, but if so, where is the quantitative data. If it exists, why does nobody seem to have published it in any form that we can find.
-
Bryan, thanks for your response. I suspect we are fairly close to on the same page on this issue. No, we're probably not that far off. The point I'm trying to get at is that it's all fine and good to whinge that the ball needs to be rolled back. It's another to be specific about what it should be rolled back to. Saying roll it back by 10 or 15% just doesn't cut it from a regulatory or policing point of view. I know that you won't be happy, nor would I if the USGA were to roll back the ball and we didn't understand and agree with the target and the methodology. I'm just trying to get to a better definition of where you'd like those to be.
I don't have any more balatas to continue the experiments, at least not any that haven't been hit to death. As I said I did this test a number of years ago. Too bad. I don't have any handy high swing speed players that I can take to the local launch monitor to test out my one balata. It's still in pretty good shape though.
Why did you focus on carry distance? How were the total distance numbers? If I recall correctly the Pro V1x had a higher percentage of total distance as carry, as compared to the Balata. At least with the Latex Lynn. I was doing this on free time on the monitor, ostensibly trying out a new driver. It was tough enough to get the numbers I did. I'm not a big fan of total distance numbers. They depend too much on unmeasurable parameters - the decayed spin rate on landing. the incidence angle and the firmness of the turf, for instance.
How big a sample did you use? Surely you are not so consistent that one hit with each sufficed? If you used a large enough sample then I am surprised that your swing speed differed between the two balls. I believe the Latex Lynn was set for a few mph less than yours (about 92 or 93 for both balls if I recall correctly (I don't have the complete data in front of me.) So that might explain a bit of the difference in result. My Balatas were a few years fresher as well. I hit about ten with each and eliminated the shots that were obvious mishits. Apparently Balata Bryan is not as consistent as Latex Lynn. We need to try the Dubious David machine to see how consistent he is ;D
2.3 yards per MPH is a LOT lower than the numbers in the USGA study. How did you come up with this number? Not sure why you conclude that perhaps your launch monitor wasn't working quite right regarding this number?The ball speeds were 3 mph different and the carry distance was 7 yards different. I guess most numbers are based on swing speed differences, but that would have produced nonsensical results here and perhaps is inappropriate for comparisons between different balls with different COR's.
Did you test the Pro V1 as well Pro V1x? No, just the V1x. See comments above about free monitor time.
___________________________________
As to showing how the lines actually cross, it would be terrific to have a wider range of data from a wider range of balls, and the USGA could easily produce such data whether or not they had Balatas. (Surely they have old statistics from the balata. Beats me. Why don't you ask them? do you really think they are that secretive that they wouldn't tell you?) They also have their balls they requested from the manufacturers and they also have a wide range of balls produced today. I guess I'm still trying to focus on what you want the roll back target to be. Most seem to want to roll back to the perceived performance of Tour Balata's (perhaps with Persimmon driver technology) for high swing speeds. You seem to want to improve the slow swing speeds as well, so perhaps you have Pinnacle level performance in mind for slower swingers. To have an intelligent discussion about targets, it would be good to have base level data for the balls in question.
But one can see how different balls have different slopes even from the narrow range of state of the art tour balls tested in their own study! Take a look at Figure 3 in the Quintavalla Study, and focus on Ball A and Ball C. One can see that at 90 mph Ball C flies farther than Ball A but what appears to be around 4 or 5 yards. But at 125 Miles Per hour, Ball A flies farther than Ball C by what appears to be about 8 or 9 yards. Thus, even over the 90+ mph swing speeds tested, there is a significant difference in distance produced between these two balls as swing speed increases. The slopes seem to cross somewhere a bit above 100 mph swing speed. All else being equal, those below that point would benefit distance wise from Ball C compared to Ball A, and all those above this point would benefit distancewise from Ball A compared to Ball C. The difference is quite pronounced by the time we get up to 125, and given that Ball C's slope appears to be dropping off relatively substantially by this point it is probably that the gap will be even greater as swing speeds increase further.
I've tried to isolate these two lines in Photoshop to make the point more evident . . .
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/USGA-Figure-3.jpg?t=1256578931)
Conversely if we continue the cap backward with slower swingspeeds, one can see that the gap distance gap of Ball C over Ball A will increase as swing speed slows. (This based on the conclusion of the study that the slope will flatten as swing speed increases.
___________________________________________
I have not spoken with the USGA Tech guys to tell them where their study falls short. I was thinking of a less adversarial; approach. You could ask them if they've done similar testing on balata balls and if so, what does it look like. As you say, I expect they probably have thought of it. I would be shocked if the USGA science guys aren't well aware of the limits of their study. If they aren't then the USGA is hiring fifth rate science guys who wouldn't understand an explanation anyway. Surely this is more an indication of the policy approach at the USGA rather than a misunderstanding in the lab. The USGA had the science guys narrowly design a study to get the result the USGA wanted, and then the USGA spun it a manner that allowed them to tell us what the USGA wants us to hear. Frankly, all those reports read like lame apologies and excuses to me; as if the USGA has been putting out fires through P.R., and trying to quell justified criticism about how they have dropped the ball (literally and figuratively) when it comes to keeping this technology in check. I haven't had any experience dealing with the USGA, so I don't have as jaded and negative a view as you do. I have volunteered with our provincial golf association and they seem like reasonable people to me. Perhaps if you took a reasonable approach you could get more information out of the USGA and make policy suggestions without getting into an adversarial position. Seems to me that they cared enough to debunk one urban myth - that the modern ball has a turbo option at some high swing speed point. Perhaps, they'd be interested in debunking or proving your point of crossing lines. Continued complaining doesn't seem to be accomplishing much.
If not, then the USGA and their science guys are blind if they truly believe that this technology has not benefited big hitters more than short hitters, and a phone call from me will not change that. I am neither science guy nor miracle worker and cannot make the blind see. I did not even stay at a Holiday Inn last night.
____________________________________
As for how I would come up with a standard, as I said I am not a science guy so I cannot say for certain. I think I would base it generally on past ratios of long and short in actual play, however. Sounds reasonable to me. I am a science guy, and I have to say though that regulating, engineering conforming balls, testing and policing is going to be really complex. Sounds simple in principle but is likely very difficult in practise. I would surely not use balls like the Pinnacle that, whatever their length, were considered too inferior in other respects for top long hitters to use. They wouldn't provide any indication of the past ratio between long and short, because longer, better players refused to use them! (Arguably, a case could be made for using these types of balls on the low (slow swing) end of the scale because recreational golfers with slow swing speeds were using these balls. However, I suspect that there wasn't much distance benefit from these balls to slower swingers anyway. I'm old enough to remember when the Pinnacle was introduced, and I used it, and it was demonstrably and unexaggeratedly longer. Or at least least the distance benefit was greatly exaggerated.)