Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture Discussion Group => Topic started by: Dave McCollum on March 30, 2013, 04:35:29 PM
-
John Paul Newport’s WSJ piece is not about whether a ball roll back is wise. Nor is it about bifurcation. It’s about the technical difficulties about actually producing a distance restricted ball.
http://online.wsj.com/article/golf_journal.html
-
Dave,
When I read the article I couldn't help but think about the old betting adage, "you get out the way you got in."
Thus, I viewed the article, and the manufacturer's perspective, as sheer nonsense.
-
Yeah, Pat, me too.
-
I seriously question the premise that it is exceedingly difficult to develop a reduced flight ball that is consistent throughout the bag. The post article comments by the author are interesting, seeming to acknowledge that a reduced flight ball could be developed that is not a linear reduction, but rather has a greater distance reduction at higher swing speeds ( the ideal, IMHO) , but that using such a ball wouldn't be fair to those pros with higher swing speeds. Wait, so maybe it can be developed, but wouldn't be fair. Seems to contradict a main premise of the article and calls into question the credibility of the whole article.
-
Now, accepting that better players have taken better advantage of the latest equipment
technology, much of that advantage has come from fitting, optimization, and the ability of
better players to make swing adjustments to improve launch and spin levels.
When I read some rollback proponents, I often read (or misread?) that there is a desire
to create equipment that has a larger impact high speeds.
I would hope any roll back would have a set club speed/ball speed across the board,
not a diminishing distance at higher speeds
-
I seriously question the premise that it is exceedingly difficult to develop a reduced flight ball that is consistent throughout the bag. The post article comments by the author are interesting, seeming to acknowledge that a reduced flight ball could be developed that is not a linear reduction, but rather has a greater distance reduction at higher swing speeds ( the ideal, IMHO) , but that using such a ball wouldn't be fair to those pros with higher swing speeds. Wait, so maybe it can be developed, but wouldn't be fair. Seems to contradict a main premise of the article and calls into question the credibility of the whole article.
Are we reading the same article, or are you referring to another article? I don't see any of that in the WSJ article that was linked here. It is strictly about the technical difficulties; the author makes it clear that he doesn't want to get into the philosophical side of the issue.
-
Now, accepting that better players have taken better advantage of the latest equipment
technology, much of that advantage has come from fitting, optimization, and the ability of
better players to make swing adjustments to improve launch and spin levels.
When I read some rollback proponents, I often read (or misread?) that there is a desire
to create equipment that has a larger impact high speeds.
I would hope any roll back would have a set club speed/ball speed across the board,
not a diminishing distance at higher speeds
This is just a critical piece, and thanks for saying it. The idea that it is somehow fair to penalize a player with a 115 mph swing speed disproportionally more than my 95 mph is just absurd. It is socialism come to golf in the worst way, and I'm a far-left liberal Democrat!
-
8) manufacturer propaganda
and i don't think there has ever been a ball that played equally across one's set of clubs.. there has always been a compromise..
caddy, hand me the Robin Hood ball
-
There's an idea, frankly idiotic, that gets touted every time this sort of thing comes up. It claims that the current golf balls have somehow magically granted huge increases in distance to the strongest players while lesser player gain very little.
Once that meme gets lodged into the conversation it starts seeming perfectly natural to demand that Something Be Done!!!!!! to magically punish the strongest players while having little effect on weaker players. It's only fair, right?
I don't know who started the entire line of thinking but it's pure conjecture with no relation to reality, in addition to being bloody-minded.
-
I seriously question the premise that it is exceedingly difficult to develop a reduced flight ball that is consistent throughout the bag. The post article comments by the author are interesting, seeming to acknowledge that a reduced flight ball could be developed that is not a linear reduction, but rather has a greater distance reduction at higher swing speeds ( the ideal, IMHO) , but that using such a ball wouldn't be fair to those pros with higher swing speeds. Wait, so maybe it can be developed, but wouldn't be fair. Seems to contradict a main premise of the article and calls into question the credibility of the whole article.
Are we reading the same article, or are you referring to another article? I don't see any of that in the WSJ article that was linked here. It is strictly about the technical difficulties; the author makes it clear that he doesn't want to get into the philosophical side of the issue.
The author wrote a comment in the comment thread to the article. The philosphical part is not in the article itself.
11 hours ago
John Paul Newport Wrote:
WSJ Reporter
Message
Connect
Interesting comments, everyone. Here are two other points there wasn't room to include in the column:
1. Golf balls clearly weren't the only cause of the big distance jumps on Tour that started in the 1990s. Better drivers with longer shafts and bigger heads that have spring-like effect and huge sweet spots; faster fairways; and better athletes with better techniques (especially when they were freer to swing all out using those big-sweet-spot drivers) contributed much more to the distance increases, cumulatively, than longer balls did. But reformers tend to focus on the ball as the simplest, one-shot way to take things back.
2. Manufacturers could devise reduced-distance balls that take less distance away from shorter hitters than from longer hitters, especially comparing a 120 mph top Tour-level swing to a 75 mph senior amateur swing. The narrower the swing-speed gap, however, the harder it is to differentiate, so that to roll the ball back significantly for a typical 113 mph Tour player would also necessarily roll it back a lot for a typical 95 mph to 100 mph amateur. There's also an issue of fairness that arises with a graduated ball like that. To penalize Dustin Johnson and his 120 mph swing big time while penalizing far less those shorter-hitting Tour players who swing at 105 mph (I was surprised to learn how many there still are in that category) is not fair to Dustin Johnson. Hitting the ball a long way is not a bad thing -- it's one of the game's most important skills and should be rewarded.
-
8) manufacturer propaganda
and i don't think there has ever been a ball that played equally across one's set of clubs.. there has always been a compromise..
caddy, hand me the Robin Hood ball
Shhhhhh.... don't tell anyone but 28 years ago in a HS match I used a Robin Hood ball for the last 4 holes, because I was down to three and of the other two, one was a balata with a huge smile, and the other was a treasured ball used to tally my lowest round at that point.
I knew better but...
cheers
vk
-
8) manufacturer propaganda
and i don't think there has ever been a ball that played equally across one's set of clubs.. there has always been a compromise..
caddy, hand me the Robin Hood ball
I think Rugge's point is that there might be inconsistencies within the set. He gives the example of more spin from deeper dimples impacting the 5 iron MORE than the driver, but not impacting the wedges as much. His explanation of this sounds completely plausible to me.
I think there is an assumption on this board that the technology of a "roll back" could be done in such a way as to let us have everything at once; less distance for higher swing speeds off the driver but in a nonlinear fashion but with little impact on the average golfer of the other clubs in the bag, etc.
I just don't see any reason to believe that this is possible, even if it is desirable, and Rugge is saying that is the case. "Spiderwebs", as he says. I see no reason to think that he is being other than factual.
-
I'm calling BS on this:
"Let's say you make a drive go 25 yards shorter by aerodynamics," said Dean Snell, TaylorMade's vice president for golf-ball research and development. "That same ball hit with a five iron might lose even more distance, since five irons create more spin to start with. It might lose 40 or 50 yards."
-
8) manufacturer propaganda
and i don't think there has ever been a ball that played equally across one's set of clubs.. there has always been a compromise..
caddy, hand me the Robin Hood ball
I think Rugge's point is that there might be inconsistencies within the set. He gives the example of more spin from deeper dimples impacting the 5 iron MORE than the driver, but not impacting the wedges as much. His explanation of this sounds completely plausible to me.
I think there is an assumption on this board that the technology of a "roll back" could be done in such a way as to let us have everything at once; less distance for higher swing speeds off the driver but in a nonlinear fashion but with little impact on the average golfer of the other clubs in the bag, etc.
I just don't see any reason to believe that this is possible, even if it is desirable, and Rugge is saying that is the case. "Spiderwebs", as he says. I see no reason to think that he is being other than factual.
The reason I question Rugge's statement is that the problem he describes has been solved for the current generation of balls. Therefore, I would think it could be addressed for shorter balls. The change that achieves shorter distance may not be dimples, it could be the core.
As for the non-linear response of a reduced flight ball, I guess that depends. If it is true that the current balls are non-linear in their response by being more responsive to higher swing speeds, I would think the converse could be true. That said, all of this is speculation because there seems to be scant data released from the USGA, even though playing tests with amateurs have occurred with reduced distance balls over the past few years. Granted, that no-linear reduction may not be desirable, but it is an interesting discussion.
-
So he greatest ball engineers in the world, who have managed to make balls that go 10-15% farther, spin better when needed, more durable, and more consistent, couldn't produce a ball that goes shorter on a consistent predictable basis?
Couldn't or wouldn't?
Total BS.
Of course there would be initial inconsistencies, and it might take more than 5 minutes to figure it out-but give me a break.
Amazing that the manufacturers are silently preparing, but it seems the USGA isn't.
I can ship them a box of Titeleist balata 90's circa 1990 if that helps.
Wonder why the makers of wood bats didn't pull out the "we can't make it card" :o ;D ;)?
It is refereshing to hear that the manufacturers think they can squeeze another 70 yards out of the ball (I wonder if the "inconsistencies" would slow them down there and make them abandon that quest)
I love how the USGA putter ban debacle is brought up as a possible impediment to rolling back the ball.
Well if they'd gone after something relevant like distance that affects the variety,cost, size, safety, and speed of playing via ball or COR restrictions, rather than a technique 30 years after the fact that does nothing to affect any of the above listed factors, they might have more credibility, rather than less.
After the putter nonsense, they definitely have made the ball rollback an even more uphill battle.
-
I'm with Jeff. If Titleist could make balata 90's in 1995, I'm having trouble understanding how, 20 years later, they would have forgotten how to do it.
Bob
-
8) manufacturer propaganda
and i don't think there has ever been a ball that played equally across one's set of clubs.. there has always been a compromise..
caddy, hand me the Robin Hood ball
I think Rugge's point is that there might be inconsistencies within the set. He gives the example of more spin from deeper dimples impacting the 5 iron MORE than the driver, but not impacting the wedges as much. His explanation of this sounds completely plausible to me.
I think there is an assumption on this board that the technology of a "roll back" could be done in such a way as to let us have everything at once; less distance for higher swing speeds off the driver but in a nonlinear fashion but with little impact on the average golfer of the other clubs in the bag, etc.
I just don't see any reason to believe that this is possible, even if it is desirable, and Rugge is saying that is the case. "Spiderwebs", as he says. I see no reason to think that he is being other than factual.
A.G. I have no illusion that a perfect ball can be made for all or that the laws of physics can be suspended, it has always been a matter of choice by the player to pick a ball best suited to goals, spin, feel, compression, distance, sound, color and adapt for the other shots that might be impacted.
Spiderwebs indeed, and marketing like when a ball is said to have titanium content (the power marketing word) and its really just titanium dioxide used as a pigment to make the cover polymer or paint white ::)
VK I was wondering who might pick up on the Robin Hood ball thing.. that's funny, they were literally around for a while, never knew if they were really illegal or not... when we used to find them they'd usually be held for the next par 5 tee shot and mysteriously disappear into a pocket after being marked on the green.. ::)
Color me a skeptical old fart
-
There's an idea, frankly idiotic, that gets touted every time this sort of thing comes up. It claims that the current golf balls have somehow magically granted huge increases in distance to the strongest players while lesser player gain very little.
Once that meme gets lodged into the conversation it starts seeming perfectly natural to demand that Something Be Done!!!!!! to magically punish the strongest players while having little effect on weaker players. It's only fair, right?
I don't know who started the entire line of thinking but it's pure conjecture with no relation to reality, in addition to being bloody-minded.
Brent -
You have said similar things in the past and I'm not sure I follow. First, as a matter of simple math, if you increase the distance all players hit drives by, say, 15%, those who originally hit it 295 will get a larger yardage boost than those who hit it 230. 15% of 295 is a larger number than 15% of 230, no?
But beyond that, my understanding from the USGA is that there are exponential (not arithmetic) distance benefits as swing speeds increase. I don't have the relevant studies at hand, but I've heard it from reliable sources. You dismiss such notions out of hand. I will defer to your superior math skills, so if you have something contra, I'd love to see it.
Finally, I don't get the argument based on just rewards. A player should enjoy the benefits of his ability to hit it long. But that is not an axiom that ends the discussion. Constraints on distance are not inherently unfair. Such constraints are the whole point of USGA ball standards, as flaccid as they may be. Are you suggesting that we should dispense with all standards in the name of just rewards for those with high swing speeds?
For those who oppose a roll-back based on notions of 'just rewards', couldn't it be argued just as easily that if longer players benefited disproportionately from the new balls, shouldn't they also bear the burden of a roll-back?
At bottom the distance issue is about the game you want golf to be. If there were a tennis ball that was unreturnable against stronger players, tennis would ban it. The game as we know it would break down if you didn't. The parallel with golf is not exact, but haven't we reached the point in golf where golf courses can't return serve, as it were?
Bob
-
Bob,
I seem to recall a USGA rule/reg relating to "initial velocity" that stated that the ball couldn't travel at more than 250 ft/sec
In addition the USGA regulates the size (1.68) and weight (1.62) of the ball.
The article mentions that balls could easily produce another 40-70 yards.
Imagine how that would decimate the interfacing of the architectural features with the golfer.
I go back to my previous question: Would golf suffer a dire fate if the ball used in 1970 was reintroduced ?
-
"Would golf suffer a dire fate if the ball used in 1970 was reintroduced ?"
The non-passive way of asking the question is whether the game would be better than today's game? I think the answer is clearly 'yes'.
Note to all. Rolling the ball back does not mean everyone will then hit it the same distance. I means that everyone will hit it shorter but that the gap between median lengths and the longest will be reduced. That seems to me a good thing.
Bob
-
Bob,
In 1964, soon after Ken Venturi won the U.S. Open he came to my home course to play an exhibition match for charity against my dad.
I've probably played that course 2,000 times, so I'm reasonable familiar with it.
Venturi was long, but the distance gap between his game and my game wasn't that pronounced, maybe a club length or so.
Today, there's an enormous gap.
Was golf terrible in 1964-1970 ?
Or did it enjoy increasing popularity ?
Most on this site keep harping about "affordable golf" on one hand, yet on the other hand, they don't want to see the ball rolled back.
They have no understanding of how "distance" and all that comes with it, including multiple tees, INCREASES the cost of golf, making it less affordable.
They can't have it both ways.
-
Now, accepting that better players have taken better advantage of the latest equipment
technology, much of that advantage has come from fitting, optimization, and the ability of
better players to make swing adjustments to improve launch and spin levels.
When I read some rollback proponents, I often read (or misread?) that there is a desire
to create equipment that has a larger impact high speeds.
I would hope any roll back would have a set club speed/ball speed across the board,
not a diminishing distance at higher speeds
This is just a critical piece, and thanks for saying it. The idea that it is somehow fair to penalize a player with a 115 mph swing speed disproportionally more than my 95 mph is just absurd. It is socialism come to golf in the worst way, and I'm a far-left liberal Democrat!
That's just nonsense. The three piece ball penalized the player with the 95 mph swing speed proportionally more than it penalized a player with a 115 mph swing speed. So it has nothing to do with socialism, or capitalism. It simply has to do with returning golf to what it was and playing the courses they way they used to be played.
Also, when a golf manufacturer starts telling you that a 5 iron shot might travel 40 yards shorter, either he is a total incompetent, because he doesn't know how far it would travel, or he is simply trying to scare you with highly improbable outcomes, because he is opposed to the idea.
-
There's an idea, frankly idiotic, that gets touted every time this sort of thing comes up. It claims that the current golf balls have somehow magically granted huge increases in distance to the strongest players while lesser player gain very little.
Once that meme gets lodged into the conversation it starts seeming perfectly natural to demand that Something Be Done!!!!!! to magically punish the strongest players while having little effect on weaker players. It's only fair, right?
I don't know who started the entire line of thinking but it's pure conjecture with no relation to reality, in addition to being bloody-minded.
I get it the physics of aerodynamics is idiotic. What we need are some real alchemists!
-
"Would golf suffer a dire fate if the ball used in 1970 was reintroduced ?"
The non-passive way of asking the question is whether that game would be better than today's game? I think the answer is clearly 'yes'.
Note to all. Rolling the ball back does not mean everyone will then hit it the same distance. I means that everyone will hit it shorter but that the gap between median lengths and the longest will be reduced. That all seems to me to be a good thing.
Bob
+1
Those who condemn us "whiners" underestimate the effect of taking a stand.
Anyone think GCA hasn't been changed dramatically by the discussions and attention on this website over the last 10-15 years is being naiv
It's got to start somewhere, and as more get on board, perhaps the USGA lurkers will realize they need to step up.
I grow tired of hearing the 99% don't care(and find it hard to believe 99% oppose a rollback-let's also remember that the 1% or whatever the # is play a lot more than 1% of rounds))
If they don't care then they'll be fine with a rollback too.
Plenty of tees (both long and shor)t have been built in the last 20 years. Play the ones that work for you, and for that matter, play the ball that works for you.
If you're part of those who don't care, then just get out of the way.
There's an entire industry who embraces your apathy, and continues to cheapen the game yearly.
It's a bit of a shame when optimizing equipment takes up as much preparation time as actual practice, but then why work on a revoltionary new technique-If it works for someone, there's a risk the USGA might ban it ::) ::) ::)
Ironic that GJ and I are on opposite ends of the spectrum handicapwise, yet share the same ideas on equipment.
Seems us 1%ers are growing ;D ;D
-
That's just nonsense. The three piece ball penalized the player with the 95 mph swing speed proportionally more than it penalized a player with a 115 mph swing speed. So it has nothing to do with socialism, or capitalism. It simply has to do with returning golf to what it was and playing the courses they way they used to be played.
Also, when a golf manufacturer starts telling you that a 5 iron shot might travel 40 yards shorter, either he is a total incompetent, because he doesn't know how far it would travel, or he is simply trying to scare you with highly improbable outcomes, because he is opposed to the idea.
[/quote]
Penalized how? Not being a dick, wondering what you are referring to. Distance? Slice? etc
-
Bob,
In 1964, soon after Ken Venturi won the U.S. Open he came to my home course to play an exhibition match for charity against my dad.
I've probably played that course 2,000 times, so I'm reasonable familiar with it.
Venturi was long, but the distance gap between his game and my game wasn't that pronounced, maybe a club length or so.
Today, there's an enormous gap.
Was golf terrible in 1964-1970 ?
Or did it enjoy increasing popularity ?
Most on this site keep harping about "affordable golf" on one hand, yet on the other hand, they don't want to see the ball rolled back.
They have no understanding of how "distance" and all that comes with it, including multiple tees, INCREASES the cost of golf, making it less affordable.
They can't have it both ways.
Agreed Pat, but just one caveat:
When ever the roll back issue raises its head, I can't help but feel we tend to lean towards hysteria. Let's not even consider the modern tour pro in the argument. Even the least inclined modern tour pro has a personalised exercise regime, a moderately healthy diet and a physio at ever turn. The old tour pro thought he was doing well to have steak and eggs for breakfast and a pack of Marlboro to hand, thus he still existed on the same plan as the amateur golfer.
When we talk about these huge differences, for a clearer perspective, look at the club pro vs the 20 capper of a similar age and take a position from there.
-
So he greatest ball engineers in the world, who have managed to make balls that go 10-15% farther, spin better when needed, more durable, and more consistent, couldn't produce a ball that goes shorter on a consistent predictable basis?
Couldn't or wouldn't?
Total BS.
Of course there would be initial inconsistencies, and it might take more than 5 minutes to figure it out-but give me a break.
...........................
As I read the article, they are not saying they couldn't, just that it gets complicated. Having done post-grad word in fluid dynamics, I'd agree that it is complex. But, of course, they could do it.
The real question is to what specs do you want the new ball rolled back to and how do you get agreement to that. People who think that it's all as simple as increase the spin rate or lower the restitution of the core have no idea how complex it would be to design a ball that met but did not exceed whatever ball regulation that they want to impose. As I understand it there is a lot of science in designing golf balls but there is also a lot of trial and error. Why do you think that there are round dimples and hex dimples and double dimples and 2 layers and 3 layers and 5 layers? Because the manufacturers are trying out different techniques to get a competitive advantage. That trial and error would have to go into any rolled back ball as well. It could be done but none of it is simplistic.
I also note that Newport points out the obvious about driver heads, shafts, faster fairways and player athleticism and their contribution to the distance issue. The poor new rolled-back ball has to make up for all those ills too.
-
Bob,
Sorry to go all Mucci on you, but it's the easiest way to address your points below.
There's an idea, frankly idiotic, that gets touted every time this sort of thing comes up. It claims that the current golf balls have somehow magically granted huge increases in distance to the strongest players while lesser player gain very little.
Once that meme gets lodged into the conversation it starts seeming perfectly natural to demand that Something Be Done!!!!!! to magically punish the strongest players while having little effect on weaker players. It's only fair, right?
I don't know who started the entire line of thinking but it's pure conjecture with no relation to reality, in addition to being bloody-minded.
Brent -
You have said similar things in the past and I'm not sure I follow. First, as a matter of simple math, if you increase the distance all players hit drives by, say, 15%, those who originally hit it 295 will get a larger yardage boost than those who hit it 230. 15% of 295 is a larger number than 15% of 230, no?
Your conclusion would be true if the premise was true. However, there is no data, that I know of, which demonstrates that there was a 15%, across the driver speed range, increase in distance.
But beyond that, my understanding from the USGA is that there are exponential (not arithmetic) distance benefits as swing speeds increase. I don't have the relevant studies at hand, but I've heard it from reliable sources. You dismiss such notions out of hand. I will defer to your superior math skills, so if you have something contra, I'd love to see it.
The only USGA study I've seen was by Quintavalla in 2006 and revisited in 2011 that demonstrated that for the modern ball there is a linear increase in distance vs swing speed.
Here is his graph.
(http://www.usga.org/assets/0/1165/1167/2147483772/2147484696/2c28478f-2c9a-44d7-97f4-55ab63c01b68.jpg)
He also notes, by the way, that: "Tests have proven repeatedly that the energy “boost" at Tour-level speeds is a myth: balls are actually less effective at translating energy into distance at higher swing speeds.
(http://www.usga.org/assets/0/1165/1167/2147483772/2147484696/5b60a20b-6594-4044-8c8b-1f9957d5a9fb.jpg)
Finally, I don't get the argument based on just rewards. A player should enjoy the benefits of his ability to hit it long. But that is not an axiom that ends the discussion. Constraints on distance are not inherently unfair. Such constraints are the whole point of USGA ball standards, as flaccid as they may be. Are you suggesting that we should dispense with all standards in the name of just rewards for those with high swing speeds?
For those who oppose a roll-back based on notions of 'just rewards', couldn't it be argued just as easily that if longer players benefited disproportionately from the new balls, shouldn't they also bear the burden of a roll-back?
Again, if your premise is true then your conclusion sounds "just", but there is no data that I've seen that proves the premise. The questions, I suppose, are twofold. Should distance increase in a linear fashion with swing speed? And, at what rate should the distance increase? Should it be at 2 yards per mph increase of swing speed, or 3 yards per mph or something else. What is the "just" rate to fairly reward the swing speed skill? The current rate is around 2.7 yards per mph. Presumably the roll-backers want something that is less - but what?
As an exercise here is the USGA graph and I've placed a yellow line that is 15% below the current line. To me it does not represent driving distance with the balata ball as I remember it and I've been playing since the 1950's. I also placed a purple line where I think that most "roll-backers" would like. What's missing is the objective, data driven, line that represents what was the reality of the balata ball vs swing speed. And, of course that begs the question of whether the old balata ball and equipment of 1990 or 1980 or 1970 is the "right" goal to be trying to achieve.
(http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee260/350dtm/QuintavallaSpeedvsDistanceGraph.jpg)
At bottom the distance issue is about the game you want golf to be. If there were a tennis ball that was unreturnable against stronger players, tennis would ban it. The game as we know it would break down if you didn't. The parallel with golf is not exact, but haven't we reached the point in golf where golf courses can't return serve, as it were?
Sure, for some courses for a small percentage of servers
Bob
-
Bob,
In 1964, soon after Ken Venturi won the U.S. Open he came to my home course to play an exhibition match for charity against my dad.
I've probably played that course 2,000 times, so I'm reasonable familiar with it.
Venturi was long, but the distance gap between his game and my game wasn't that pronounced, maybe a club length or so.
Today, there's an enormous gap.
..............................
Patrick,
What was you swing speed relative to Venturi's in 1964 when you were 21? What is yours today at 71 relative to Bubba or Tiger? Why are you astonished that there is an enormous gap? Your swing speed has gone down and Bubba and Tiger are probably at least 10 mph faster than Venturi.
-
Bryan -
1. Whether the distance increases are 15% or 9% or whatever (the percentage will depend on what year you take as your baseline, btw. If it's 1920 vs. 1950 vs. 2000, you will get a different percent gain), X% of a bigger number is always more than X% of a smaller number.
2. I've heard different conclusions from USGA guys about exponential increases. But even given your graph, that is is steep slope. (I would love to see the same graph done in 1980. I'd guess it is much less sloped.) But note big gaps between normal speeds and higher speeds. For example, at 95 mph I'm hitting it 240. At 115 I'm hitting it 300. That's a huge gap in raw yardage and gaps in raw yardage of that magnitude matter. They are without precedent in the history of the game.
Specifically, a 490 yd par 4 is too long for the 95 mph guy; it is a mid/short iron approach for the 115 mph guy. Which is another way of asking how do you design a hole that requires longer players to hit mid or long irons while making it playable at the same par for the rest of us? That is a common problem these days. It was rare until recently.
3. The foregoing suggests that the mph/yardage relationship is out of wack. Longer players have benefited disproportionately. I say that not because there is a magic mph/yardage ratio or that there is an upward sloping curve in that ratio, but because we all see what today's longer players do to the golf courses we consider classic, the courses where we want our major championships to be conducted.
Bob
-
That's just nonsense. The three piece ball penalized the player with the 95 mph swing speed proportionally more than it penalized a player with a 115 mph swing speed. So it has nothing to do with socialism, or capitalism. It simply has to do with returning golf to what it was and playing the courses they way they used to be played.
Also, when a golf manufacturer starts telling you that a 5 iron shot might travel 40 yards shorter, either he is a total incompetent, because he doesn't know how far it would travel, or he is simply trying to scare you with highly improbable outcomes, because he is opposed to the idea.
Penalized how? Not being a dick, wondering what you are referring to. Distance? Slice? etc
Relative distance. After the drive, the 95 mph swing speed player is farther behind the 115 mph swing speed player than he was before the three piece ball. That also carries through to other clubs where more distance was gained by the faster swinger. Was it fair to the slower swinger to reduce the reward for finesse and increase the reward for strength?
-
Bob,
I mean no disrepect to yourself personally and should not have used such strong language to register my disagreement. But someone or another always seems to toss into the discussion this supposed "exponential" relationship between clubhead speed and distance. Then when it is made clear there's no evidence of any such effect the claims revert back to simple complaints that elite players today just hit it too darned far.
Which is fine. If you think elite players hit today's ball too far and you want to see the ball regulations changed to make elite players hit it shorter that is a perfectly understandable point of view. It simply does not require reference to any straw-man "exponential" or non linear increase in distance.
Several things happened at roughly the same time. Elite players got a lot more athletic. Swing technique evolved (akin to pitching in baseball) to emphasize sheer clubhead speed and power as an absolutle priority, beginning with the way chlldren learn to swing and continuing all the way to the highest levels. Ball designs continued their improvement as more was learned about materials and about the interaction between clubs and balls...with the biggest improvement occurring when manufacturers found a way to create golf balls that spin less (akin to a "distance" ball) on full shots while remaining perfectly controllable with plenty of short-game spin.
It was that last piece falling into place that created a near discontinuity in the ball performance experienced by elite players. I think casual observers conflate the gradual upward trend in elite-player distance that accrues due to the other factors I mention and the very sudden shift upward in that trend line due to the one-time change that happened when the traditional choice between "Tons of spin on every shot" and "No spin on every shot" became moot due to the multipiece solid core ball.
The reason it seems this "unfairly" aided the better player is that only the better players were being constrained by having to use a ball that spins too much off the tee in order to gain acceptable control around the greens. Lesser players were either already using "distance" balls or they were using Tour type balls but not suffering greatly from spin because their clubhead speeds were low. So the misapprehension arose that somehow the upward trend in distance was now an "exponential" curve. In fact it's still a more or less linear trend (probably more like a slightly downward inflected curve due to the compression-rebound losses at higher speeds that Bryan mentioned) combined with a one-time step function displacing the entire curve upward for the highest clubhead speed players.
-
Brent,
That was an excellent explanation you provided.
Elite players always had the choice of distance balls, but most chose not to use them.
Jim Ferree used Pinnacle Golds back in the late 80's/early 90's-my fear using them was flyers out of the rough(Jim didn't have that problem) ;D
-
Paul Gray,
Palmer was a bull, a physical specimen, Nicklaus was a great athlete, Stranahan and Player physical fitness buffs, and Hale Irwin an All-big 8 defensive back, so I'm not sure your depiction is accurate.
-
Pat,
Good point as well.
Jack Nicklaus had 32 inch thighs, played with a 42 inch driver, and killed it, at a time when high spin made it difficult to create distance with a fade (broke many,many inserts in his youth with his speed)
-
"Relative distance. After the drive, the 95 mph swing speed player is farther behind the 115 mph swing speed player than he was before the three piece ball. That also carries through to other clubs where more distance was gained by the faster swinger. Was it fair to the slower swinger to reduce the reward for finesse and increase the reward for strength?"
Most amateurs that I caddied for as a kid used top flites, molitors and Pinnacles when they came out
It was a gift from God to find a Hogan, Titleist, or even a Tourney. We saved those golden eggs for competitive rounds!
The original technology in golf balls was directed at the masses. Surlyn gave durability, and happened to spin less, thereby flying
a little straighter (and going further).
The one ball rule came about because of better players putting Molitors in play on long par threes and some par fives.
On the long par threes they flew straighter and went further.
Around 2000, some good senior golfers in the southeast started using Bridgestone Lady golf balls when one very good senior amateur
discovered it went hugely further than his previous ball. I used the Lady in the Nike Tour Championship (RTJ Trail course). It flew 6-10 yards further, almost a full club with the irons, and made a course that hugely favored long hitters within reach. It was a give back on wedges though (for me).
Funny thing was, The Lady distance caught Bridgestone by surprise. They were simply trying to make a softer feeling ball for women with a cover that was thicker for a little bit of distance. They triggered the softer cores/dynamic covers partly by accident.
All I believe, is that IF a roll back happens, I do not believe there should be a penalty against high club head speed (or lower speeds)
10 percent more speed should be 10% more distance if struck solidly/squarely
-
Bryan -
1. Whether the distance increases are 15% or 9% or whatever (the percentage will depend on what year you take as your baseline, btw. If it's 1920 vs. 1950 vs. 2000, you will get a different percent gain), X% of a bigger number is always more than X% of a smaller number.
I don't dispute your math or the possibility of different percentages in different eras. But, your premise that the % increase was the same for 95 mph speeds and 115 mph speeds is unproven.
2. I've heard different conclusions from USGA guys about exponential increases. But even given your graph, that is is steep slope. (I would love to see the same graph done in 1980. As would we all. Unfortunately it doesn't seem that anybody has done that test or published it. Perhaps we could get Jeff to send his box of tour balatas to Far Hills and ask them to do it under the same conditions as the Quintavalla study. I'd guess it is much less sloped.) Maybe, but it would be nice to know for sure before trying to ratchet ourselves back to that slope. But note big gaps between normal speeds and higher speeds. For example, at 95 mph I'm hitting it 240. At 115 I'm hitting it 300. That's a huge gap in raw yardage and gaps in raw yardage of that magnitude matter. They are without precedent in the history of the game. We don't know if it's "without precedent" since there doesn't seem to be a study that shows what the gap was at any point in the past.
Specifically, a 490 yd par 4 is too long for the 95 mph guy; it is a mid/short iron approach for the 115 mph guy. Which is another way of asking how do you design a hole that requires longer players to hit mid or long irons while making it playable at the same par for the rest of us? That is a common problem these days. It was rare until recently. When I was much younger (and stronger) playing a 450 yard par 4 was pretty difficult or me while it wasn't much of an issue for professional players and top amateurs. Same problem on a different scale from today from a design point of view. I think you are mistaken to say that it's only become a design problem recently.
3. The foregoing suggests that the mph/yardage relationship is out of wack. Longer players have benefited disproportionately. I say that not because there is a magic mph/yardage ratio or that there is an upward sloping curve in that ratio, but because we all see what today's longer players do to the golf courses we consider classic, the courses where we want our major championships to be conducted. I understand the desire to use classic courses for major championship without altering them. What's more difficult to deal with is the major war that would have to be waged with the majority of players, both professional and amateur, and manufacturers to make this happen. I'm OK with compressing the top end distances because that would not really affect me, but there are many who would object. I do think there is a major question of fairness about compressing the slope without some historical norm to compare it to. Even then, it would be a major war in my opinion.
Bob
-
Pat,
All I believe, is that IF a roll back happens, I do not believe there should be a penalty against high club head speed (or lower speeds)
10 percent more speed should be 10% more distance if struck solidly/squarely
Sounds fair. Using the current chart, a 21% increase in driver speed gets you a 25% increase in distance. So, some tweaking required to get to your "fair" approach, but nothing major. So, the current slope is not too far off the mark.
-
Pat,
All I believe, is that IF a roll back happens, I do not believe there should be a penalty against high club head speed (or lower speeds)
10 percent more speed should be 10% more distance if struck solidly/squarely
Sounds fair. Using the current chart, a 21% increase in driver speed gets you a 25% increase in distance. So, some tweaking required to get to your "fair" approach, but nothing major. So, the current slope is not too far off the mark.
Perfect!
Now if someone could convince me that a roll back would really help the "industry" of golf ;D
-
Pat,
All I believe, is that IF a roll back happens, I do not believe there should be a penalty against high club head speed (or lower speeds)
10 percent more speed should be 10% more distance if struck solidly/squarely
Sounds fair. Using the current chart, a 21% increase in driver speed gets you a 25% increase in distance. So, some tweaking required to get to your "fair" approach, but nothing major. So, the current slope is not too far off the mark.
Perfect!
Now if someone could convince me that a roll back would really help the "industry" of golf ;D
That is a can of worms, but considering all the industry talk a rollback is a bit of conundrum. That said, if the rollback talk is serious, now is the time while golf is stagnated in the west and starting its boom in the east.
Ciao
-
Paul Gray,
Palmer was a bull, a physical specimen, Nicklaus was a great athlete, Stranahan and Player physical fitness buffs, and Hale Irwin an All-big 8 defensive back, so I'm not sure your depiction is accurate.
Pat,
I'm not suggesting mankind has undergone some sort of evolutionary leap in the past fifty years, simply that lifestyles have changed. Even at the tender age of 35 I've seen the huge strides in the understanding of, say, the dietary requirements of a modern athlete. And Palmer, Nicklaus et al, despite being supreme natural specimens, didn't even know what biomechanics was.
-
BTW, who pays for the R&D for a product that:
a. has parameters that cannot be agreed upon
b. may not be possible
c. the mass market does not want
Just thought I'd ask.
(I do enjoy a good discussion of technical matters by people who don't work in the industry and have no real qualifications or expertise but are willing to take over-the-top positions nonetheless!)
-
Brent -
I don't disagree with your historical account of how we got where we are today. That does not make where we are today any less troubling.
The bottom line is that the venues on which elite players compete are no longer providing the kinds of tests we have hitorically expected those venues to provide. That's because of how far elite players hit the ball. Whether that increase traces a steeply sloped linear relationship of mph to yardage or whether that slope curves upward, the fact of the matter is that modern venues don't match up with the state of modern elite play.
That mismatch is due to one thing and one thing only. Distance.
People want to dismiss that problem as a one that applies to only a small fraction of golfers. But that misses the real point. Major championships are critically important to any sport. For all sorts of reasons. One of those reasons is that if the game we see at US Opens or at the Masters starts to de-link from the game us ordinary golfers play, it bodes badly for the future of the game.
Other sports don't have this problem because they are self-regulating. In tennis, for example, no one wants to introduce a new, hot ball because everyone will need to return it. Ditto for baseball. I may hit it farther, but I've also got to pitch and field it. There is no similar inherent constraints on hot new balls in golf. Legislated limits on balls arre supposed to fill in that gap in golf. But the current limits aren't doing what they are supposed to do.
The 'fairness' argument I simply don't buy. Longer players have benefited more from advances in b & i more than any other segment of the golfing population. It is right, proper and just that they should bear most of the burden of any roll-back of those advances.
Bob
-
Bob,
But is it really a "benefit" to, say, Brandt Snedeker to hit the ball 15% longer with every club in the bag than he would with a 90's era golf ball? After all, every player he competes against is in the same general category.
In my opinion a very real concern in evaluating any proposed ball-spec change is that it should not "unfairly" (for want of a better term) affect one specific type of player or another within a general category. If you make a change that affects the hell out of Bubba Watson while affecting Snedeker significantly less then that IMO would be an inequitable Rules change.
I am less concerned about the differential in the effect of a change in my game or yours relative to its effect on any given Tour player. It is only a problem in as much as it affects one Tour player but not another, affects you but not me or if it were to seriously make the game harder and/or more expensive for casual golfers. And I see those sorts of inequities as highly unlikely to arise from any realistic change.
-
Paul Gray,
Palmer was a bull, a physical specimen, Nicklaus was a great athlete, Stranahan and Player physical fitness buffs, and Hale Irwin an All-big 8 defensive back, so I'm not sure your depiction is accurate.
Pat,
I'm not suggesting mankind has undergone some sort of evolutionary leap in the past fifty years, simply that lifestyles have changed. Even at the tender age of 35 I've seen the huge strides in the understanding of, say, the dietary requirements of a modern athlete. And Palmer, Nicklaus et al, despite being supreme natural specimens, didn't even know what biomechanics was.
Paul,
I think they understood them, but, not in the same way that they're understood today.
Nicklaus's and Palmer's records support their understanding of biomechanics.
I think the difference today, is the method by which biomechanics are communicated to and/or acquired by the golfer.
Someone recently asked a great golfer why all of these young kids were making an immediate splash on the tour.
They stated that the instant visual feedback, provided by modern teaching methods had accelerated the learning process exponentially.
Decades ago, golfers had to be on tour for years before they "learned" to win.
Today, with the aid of the computers, tracking and visual aids, golfers are "learning" at a far more rapid pace and ready to win much sooner than their predecessors, because they're fundamentally sounder, sooner.
Not long ago I took my youngest son to a "teaching lab" for his putting.
He had an uncanny ability to read putts exceptionally well, but, his putting stroke was flawed.
Despite my numerous attempts to communicate the flaws to him, he retained his flawed stroke.
When he went on the monitors/computer devices, the feedback was immediate and visual.
There was no arguing with the results.
At address, his alignment was PGA Tour like, but his stroke, horrendous, outside/in with an open face.
When he saw this on the monitors/computers, it was irrefutable and he immediately corrected it and his putting improved dramatically, in terms of his mechanical stroke.
Now, he just has to work on "feel" which the monitors/computers/labs can't teach him.
But, my point is that his fundamentals were immediately improved.
Had he not had the benefit of the modern monitors/computers/visuals, who knows how long it would have taken him to figure it out, with or without my imput ?
So, there's no doubt that the modern hi-tech devices accelerate the learning process.
Nicklaus and Palmer just figured that out without those devices.
-
Pat,
Nobody "learns to win" on the PGA Tour...they either already know or it just happens to them.
-
Pat,
Nobody "learns to win" on the PGA Tour...they either already know or it just happens to them.
I cannot find the quote, so maybe I'm mistaken, but I believe Tom Watson was quoted saying
it took him some time to learn how to win on tour?
-
Pat,
Win tournaments...or win Majors?
-
Pat,
Win tournaments...or win Majors?
Tom Watson was referring to winning on tour. What I believe he meant is that you can come close, but when you don't control your nerves well enough, you give up a shot or two that you shouldn't. He didn't have to learn to control nerves near so much to win a club championship for example
-
Bryan,
I hope you never drag out the USGA obfuscation graphs again.
What is of interest is not what a ball does as swing speed increases. What is of interest is how the factor that changed actually changed results from players. The factor that changed is ball spin!
This website
http://probablegolfinstruction.com/PGI%20Newsletter/news05-02-04.htm
gives distances for different spins.
First thing to note. The introduction of the three piece ball reduced spin and unfairly penalized the slow swing player. Notice that the slow swing player lost 5 yards. The removal of the balata balls from the market place removed balls spinning relatively highly off of the driver from the market place, thereby hurting the results of the below average swing speed player.
Looking for another reason golf is losing players. Maybe that's one.
Second thing to note. The 100 mph swing speed player gained at most four yards with optimal ball selection. The 120 mph swing speed player gained at most nine yards with optimal ball selection. Therefore, the new balls have given an extra advantage to the high swing speed player. The near sighted USGA is right. Distance does not increase super linearly with increased swing speed. But that is not the issue. The distance advantage gained with the new ball by the high speed swinger is super linear. That's unfair!
Notice that the gain by optimization for the 120 mph swinger over the 100 mph swinger is 2.25x.
Should he get that much gain?
120/100 = 1.2x
172/143 = 1.203 (ball speed comparison)
I think the USGA needs to require the spin be put back into the ball.
Perhaps naively I suggest the manufacturers could put a balata cover over a solid core. Wouldn't that do it? I don't see what difference a wound core and a solid core would make. I do know they all got rid of the ball winding equipment.
-
On second thought, never mind.
-
What was you swing speed relative to Venturi's in 1964 when you were 21?
Not that different.
But remember, you couldn't swing all out because of the small club face, weight of the club and spun of the ball.
What is yours today at 71 relative to Bubba or Tiger?
Forget my swing speed today compared to Bubba and Tiger, compare my swing speed when I was 21 to Bubba and Tiger.
There was no way you could generate the swing speeds in 1963 with that equipment that you can generate today with today's equipment.
That's the crux of the issue.
Why are you astonished that there is an enormous gap?
I'm NOT astonished, that's your word, not mine.
Your swing speed has gone down and Bubba and Tiger are probably at least 10 mph faster than Venturi.
I'll guarantee you that Bubba's and Tiger's swing speeds are a lot more than 10 mph vs Venturi.
With 1964's equipment there's no way that Venturi could come close to Tiger and Bubba BECAUSE of the equipment.
THAT'S THE ISSUE, the modern I & B enables swing speeds previously unobtainable, to be achieved.
-
Bryan,
I hope you never drag out the USGA obfuscation graphs again.
What is of interest is not what a ball does as swing speed increases. What is of interest is how the factor that changed actually changed results from players. The factor that changed is ball spin!
This website
http://probablegolfinstruction.com/PGI%20Newsletter/news05-02-04.htm
gives distances for different spins.
First thing to note. The introduction of the three piece ball reduced spin and unfairly penalized the slow swing player. Notice that the slow swing player lost 5 yards. The removal of the balata balls from the market place removed balls spinning relatively highly off of the driver from the market place, thereby hurting the results of the below average swing speed player.
Looking for another reason golf is losing players. Maybe that's one.
Second thing to note. The 100 mph swing speed player gained at most four yards with optimal ball selection. The 120 mph swing speed player gained at most nine yards with optimal ball selection. Therefore, the new balls have given an extra advantage to the high swing speed player. The near sighted USGA is right. Distance does not increase super linearly with increased swing speed. But that is not the issue. The distance advantage gained with the new ball by the high speed swinger is super linear. That's unfair!
Notice that the gain by optimization for the 120 mph swinger over the 100 mph swinger is 2.25x.
Should he get that much gain?
120/100 = 1.2x
172/143 = 1.203 (ball speed comparison)
I think the USGA needs to require the spin be put back into the ball.
Perhaps naively I suggest the manufacturers could put a balata cover over a solid core. Wouldn't that do it? I don't see what difference a wound core and a solid core would make. I do know they all got rid of the ball winding equipment.
In 1996, Callaway was fitting me in to a 6.5 degree driver and a much different launch angle
After my surgery in '98, I came back to play in 2000.
I was fitted in to a 9.75 degree driver, looking for 3 degrees higher launch and lower spin on my driver.
I took a few months to make a swing adjustment with my driver to launch it higher without spinning it more,
and net effect, was able to carry the ball 8 to 10 yards further, with the same shaft. Through the year,
I was about 60th in total driving. Got a 10.75 degree driver late in the year, with a different shaft (higher kick point)
and in my last 4 events that year, was in the top 20 total driving every event (high of 10th)
Tour players made huge gains (in part) due to the research changing the ideals of what our launch should be,
those same players being able to make adjustments to take advantage of those ideals, and still hit it squarely/solidly.
Those same players will hit Pinnacle Gold or Noodles further than their ProV1
-
...
Those same players will hit Pinnacle Gold or Noodles further than their ProV1
My understanding is that ProV1 still spins more than the two piece balls.
-
(http://www.usga.org/assets/0/1165/1167/2147483772/2147484696/2c28478f-2c9a-44d7-97f4-55ab63c01b68.jpg)
Hold on here. Just because the line looks rather straight does not mean it is a linear relationship. Plus, I'm always skeptical of graphs that are supposed to indicate a relationship or lack of between the axes that don't have both origins at 0 - if you choose the start of each axis correctly you can make it look like a 45* slope even if every additional mph gave you 10 more yards.
Looks like me like the graph shows around 225 yards at 90 mph and just over 310 yards at 120 mph. So an increase of 33% in swing speed has resulted in a nearly 38% increase in distance. I'd prefer if this showed carry distance, I assume it does not unless the ball/driver/swing is optimized one hell of a lot better than I am :)
More importantly, even if that showed a strictly linear relationship between additional mph of swing speed and additional yards of distance there's a very important piece of data missing: Where's the equivalent graph from say 20-30 years ago?
-
Bryan,
I hope you never drag out the USGA obfuscation graphs again.
What obfuscation? The graphs depict what they purport to depict - that the modern ball does not go disproportionately further as swing speed increases.
What is of interest is not what a ball does as swing speed increases. It may not be of interest to you, but seems to be a common misperception by many others. What is of interest is how the factor that changed actually changed results from players. The factor that changed is ball spin! I get it, you are obsessed with spin.
This website
http://probablegolfinstruction.com/PGI%20Newsletter/news05-02-04.htm
gives distances for different spins.
First thing to note. The introduction of the three piece ball reduced spin and unfairly penalized the slow swing player. That's what you're inferring. I don't see any comparable data for pre-three piece balls. BTW weren't balata balls 3 pices - the core, the windings and the cover? Notice that the slow swing player lost 5 yards. No, I don't notice that in the article. There are no stats for the old balata ball in the article. The removal of the balata balls from the market place removed balls spinning relatively highly off of the driver from the market place, thereby hurting the results of the below average swing speed player. There are no comparative stats for the old balata ball so I find it hard to draw your absolute conclusion.
Looking for another reason golf is losing players. Maybe that's one. How much the ball spins off a driver is not high on my list of reasons golf is losing players.
Second thing to note. The 100 mph swing speed player gained at most four yards with optimal ball selection. I don't see where you're getting that number. The 120 mph swing speed player gained at most nine yards with optimal ball selection. Nor, this one. Therefore, the new balls have given an extra advantage to the high swing speed player. Whereever in the tables you got those numbers, do they represent the optimal launch conditions for the respective swing speeds. I think you've tried to dumb this down too much. The near sighted USGA is right. Distance does not increase super linearly with increased swing speed. But that is not the issue. The distance advantage gained with the new ball by the high speed swinger is super linear. That's unfair!
What the heck do you mean by "super linear". Is this from parallel computing? The best I could find is this definition. Is this what you mean:
"Super-linear, f(x + y) >= f(x) + f(y), simply means that the curve departs from linear in a "concave upward" manner. Say for example like the curve y=x^2 for positive x.
Sub-linear, f(x + y) <= f(x) + f(y), means it departs from linear in a "concave downwards" manner. Say for example like the curve y=sqrt(x) for positive x. "
The Quintavalla study proves this is not the case with the modern ball. If you're saying that it is true comparing the old balata to the new Pro V1, then I respect that that is your belief, but there is no proof that I've seen that that it is the case.
Notice that the gain by optimization for the 120 mph swinger over the 100 mph swinger is 2.25x.
Should he get that much gain?
120/100 = 1.2x
172/143 = 1.203 (ball speed comparison)
This math just totally mystifies me, but don't bother trying to explain further.
I think the USGA needs to require the spin be put back into the ball.
You really should get over your obsession with spin. As Pat B points out from his experience you can change the spin and other launch parameters a lot through clubhead design, loft, shaft, and swing technique. It would be much simpler to just decrease the Overall Distance Standard to your heart's desire and let the guys who design and manufacture balls figure pout how to get there.
Perhaps naively I suggest the manufacturers could put a balata cover over a solid core. Wouldn't that do it? I don't see what difference a wound core and a solid core would make. I do know they all got rid of the ball winding equipment.
Why, oh why, would anyone want to go back to balata. It's scarce and so easily destroyed by mishit shot. I never want to go back to smiley balls. ;D Can you imagine the damage modern grooves would do to them too. If you don't understand how the core can effect distance, perhaps you should recuse yourself from designing golf balls.
-
What was you swing speed relative to Venturi's in 1964 when you were 21?
Not that different.
But remember, you couldn't swing all out because of the small club face, weight of the club and spun of the ball.
As best as I recall, I get bad results when I swing all out now as I did 50 years ago. ;D
What is yours today at 71 relative to Bubba or Tiger?
Forget my swing speed today compared to Bubba and Tiger, compare my swing speed when I was 21 to Bubba and Tiger.
There was no way you could generate the swing speeds in 1963 with that equipment that you can generate today with today's equipment.
That's the crux of the issue.
Honest question - do you have any idea what your or Venturi's swing speed was when you were 21? Do you think it was under 105 mph. Tiger is around 120 now, I think. Regardless, the additional swing speed, whatever it is a product of the club, not the ball. Rolling back the ball to cover the sins of the club seems somehow wrong-headed to me.
Why are you astonished that there is an enormous gap?
I'm NOT astonished, that's your word, not mine.
Your swing speed has gone down and Bubba and Tiger are probably at least 10 mph faster than Venturi.
I'll guarantee you that Bubba's and Tiger's swing speeds are a lot more than 10 mph vs Venturi.
With 1964's equipment there's no way that Venturi could come close to Tiger and Bubba BECAUSE of the equipment.
Do you think Venturi et al were sub 100 mph? How much more than 10 mph lower? I played in our Am championship here in the 60's in a field that included Gary Cowan ( 2 time US Am champion) at Scarborough Golf Club. There was a short par 4, the 17th, where he carried a river that was at least a 280 carry (albeit downhill). He sure didn't do that swinging under 100 mph.
I'd agree with your second statement.
THAT'S THE ISSUE, the modern I & B enables swing speeds previously unobtainable, to be achieved.
Agreed, but swing speed is a club and athleticism and technique issue, not a ball issue.
-
(http://www.usga.org/assets/0/1165/1167/2147483772/2147484696/2c28478f-2c9a-44d7-97f4-55ab63c01b68.jpg)
Hold on here. Just because the line looks rather straight does not mean it is a linear relationship. Plus, I'm always skeptical of graphs that are supposed to indicate a relationship or lack of between the axes that don't have both origins at 0 - if you choose the start of each axis correctly you can make it look like a 45* slope even if every additional mph gave you 10 more yards.
Changing the origins to zero will change the way the graph looks, but doesn't change the relationship between the variables at all. The slope is 2.7 yards/MPH regardless of whether you start at zero or at the numbers in the graph.
Looks like me like the graph shows around 225 yards at 90 mph and just over 310 yards at 120 mph. So an increase of 33% in swing speed has resulted in a nearly 38% increase in distance. I'd prefer if this showed carry distance, I assume it does not unless the ball/driver/swing is optimized one hell of a lot better than I am :)
Yes, the % distance increase is a bit greater than the % swing speed increase. That still does not make the increase non-linear. I wouldn't argue that a linear increase with a lower slope - say 2.5 yards/MPH - might not be more just. But how we advise the USGA about what the slope should be?
More importantly, even if that showed a strictly linear relationship between additional mph of swing speed and additional yards of distance there's a very important piece of data missing: Where's the equivalent graph from say 20-30 years ago?
It's not "IF". The results show a pretty linear relationship with a bit of a tail off at the higher speeds (the opposite of what people seem to think). Yes, the missing link is the comparable chart for balls from the 1990's or 1980's. It would be interesting to see the Titleist Professional or the Tour Balata and a Pinnacle or a Top-Flite tested under the same conditions as the Quintavalla study. So far, I've never seen such results. Jeff W says he has a dozen such balls - let's all persuade him to send them to the USGA and then lobby Quintavalla to do the comparative study.
-
Bryan,
That's why I constantly reference I & B, not just the ball.
-
Bryan,
You may think I am obsessing about spin. Or, I may just be emphasizing one of the most important factors. As far as I have seen, we have had one informed report here on what the USGA might be thinking about ball regulation. That was the report of Dan Hermann who reported on a test he participated in with the USGA on a reduced distance ball. The factor the USGA was testing was higher spin rates. He reported that, if I recall correctly, he lost a small amount of distance with the higher spin ball, while his wife gained a small amount of distance with the higher spin ball.
The study you report from the USGA does not report on the effect of spin. Therefore, I don't think it is pertinent.
One report I have seen here said larger dimples would increase spin (that may have been Dan also). I don't understand that, but if you were to say larger dimples would increase the effect on the curving flight of the ball, that would make sense to me. So it would seem that larger dimples and a relatively high rate of spin may be why the old balls ballooned up when struck at a high rate of speed, thereby reducing distance significantly.
The study you report from the USGA does not report on dimple size either. Still not pertinent.
-
The only USGA study I've seen was by Quintavalla in 2006 and revisited in 2011 that demonstrated that for the modern ball there is a linear increase in distance vs swing speed.
That may be true for elite players, who make nearly perfect contact with the ball. But I wonder if that is true for non-elite players. Average golfers make great contact way less. So they won't get the same benefits from the newer ball technology.
If you could make the same graph, but with average golfers at lower swing speeds and elite players at high speeds, you might not see a straight line. Instead you might see a curve, of the same nature as y = x˛. Similar to what Bob Crosby is saying.
-
The only USGA study I've seen was by Quintavalla in 2006 and revisited in 2011 that demonstrated that for the modern ball there is a linear increase in distance vs swing speed.
That may be true for elite players, who make nearly perfect contact with the ball. But I wonder if that is true for non-elite players. Average golfers make great contact way less. So they won't get the same benefits from the newer ball technology.
If you could make the same graph, but with average golfers at lower swing speeds and elite players at high speeds, you might not see a straight line. Instead you might see a curve, of the same nature as y = x˛. Similar to what Bob Crosby is saying.
Jim,
I'm no scientist or statistician (understatement alert!) but wouldn't this be true of ANY ball? In any event, it wouldn't change the answer to the question of whether or not distance gains are linear or non-linear, would it? The issue of distance loss on off-center contact is another question entirely, and not necessarily an important one to this debate.
And I'll continue to ask this question:
Who pays for the R&D for the development of a ball that:
a. may not be achievable
b. will be viewed by the masses an inferior product
If I'm Titleist, Bridgestone, Nike, Callaway, Srixon, etc., my answer is "Not ME!"
-
And I'll continue to ask this question:
Who pays for the R&D for the development of a ball that:
a. may not be achievable
b. will be viewed by the masses an inferior product
If I'm Titleist, Bridgestone, Nike, Callaway, Srixon, etc., my answer is "Not ME!"
Sure they will...the trigger point is the USGA mandating a roll-back, agreed?
In the event of a rollback the manufacturer's can spend money on a lawsuit or marketing their new ball...why would anyone but Titleist sue the USGA? The pie is whole again and they can all fight for all of it...
-
And I'll continue to ask this question:
Who pays for the R&D for the development of a ball that:
a. may not be achievable
b. will be viewed by the masses an inferior product
If I'm Titleist, Bridgestone, Nike, Callaway, Srixon, etc., my answer is "Not ME!"
Sure they will...the trigger point is the USGA mandating a roll-back, agreed?
In the event of a rollback the manufacturer's can spend money on a lawsuit or marketing their new ball...why would anyone but Titleist sue the USGA? The pie is whole again and they can all fight for all of it...
No, NOT agreed!
Roll back to what? A distance standard that results in balls that go lesser distances than Pinnacles do now? More spin so badly hit balls curve like boomerangs? Soft covers that cut easily? What EXACTLY is the USGA going to mandate?
People here throw the term "roll back" around like there was a golden age of golf balls. There wasn't. You want to return to something that never existed in the first place!
Golf balls do NOT go farther than they used to go 25 years ago. PREMIUM golf balls go farther than they used to go 25 years ago! I used to use a Pinnacle or TopFlite off the tee in scrambles, then balata, or later a Professional, into the greens. Now I don't bother to switch because my Bridgestone RX goes as far as the Pinnacle anyway. A ProV1x is basically a Pinnacle with a soft cover.
Here's the deal: There will be bifurcation OR there will be status quo with distance capped where it is now. THERE IS NOTHING TO ROLL BACK TO!
-
In browsing a little for information for this thread, I read that urethane is the same softness as balata. So there you have it. You don't have to use balata for a roll back. Offer urethane cover on a two piece solid ball with appropriate sized dimples, and bingo, you've rolled that sucker back. No need to roll back surlyn covered balls, the highly skilled won't use them because they can't use them effectively.
-
AG,
I believe that the manufacturers and the USGA are intelligent enough, technically savy enough and fully aware of how to establish performance standards that effectively "roll back" the ball.
At the same time I don't think that they can ignore the "I" in "I & B"
Clubheads the size of tennis rackets need to be reduced and the maximum length for clubs established.
Regulating equipment is an integral part of every sport, so I don't see why golf should be immune.
Sadly, I think that golf, like so many sports has lost its purity and transitioned from a sport to entertainment.
And that may be the biggest impediment to reigning in distance.
I don't want to see 400 yard drives.
While Shivas may insist that "chicks dig the long ball", I don't think it's in the best interest of the sport/game/architecture/costs.
Somehow, I don't see the "static" alternative that you depict.
I believe that distance will continue to increase, absent regulatory restrictions, in print and in the physical equipment.
-
The ball has become extremely profitable now that it is manufactured as a solid ball. If we were to go back to 1990 wound balls the cost would probably exceed $70 per dozen.
Shorter shaft, smaller driver face would equal less clubhead speed JMO
-
AG,
I believe that the manufacturers and the USGA are intelligent enough, technically savy enough and fully aware of how to establish performance standards that effectively "roll back" the ball.
At the same time I don't think that they can ignore the "I" in "I & B"
Clubheads the size of tennis rackets need to be reduced and the maximum length for clubs established.
Regulating equipment is an integral part of every sport, so I don't see why golf should be immune.
Sadly, I think that golf, like so many sports has lost its purity and transitioned from a sport to entertainment.
And that may be the biggest impediment to reigning in distance.
I don't want to see 400 yard drives.
While Shivas may insist that "chicks dig the long ball", I don't think it's in the best interest of the sport/game/architecture/costs.
Somehow, I don't see the "static" alternative that you depict.
I believe that distance will continue to increase, absent regulatory restrictions, in print and in the physical equipment.
Patrick,
agreed, although I'm not a fan of maximum length of clubs, as it could potentially create problems for a taller player.
a better solution would be a -x rule similar to baseball bats.
for instance in Little League they may mandate a -10 whereby a 31 inch bat can be no lighter than 21 ounces,and at the next age level, a -3 rule may apply, whereby a 31 inch bat may be no lighter than 28 ounces.
That's why there weren't many 45,46 inch drivers in our youth as the overall weight of the steel shaft made such clubs unwieldy.
Now a player can wield a 46 inch driver with a 39 gram shaft and create quite a bit of additional speed from both the length and the (lack of) weight.
baseball has simple rules that eliminate this-people still buy bats.
I'm no expert at any of this, and no doubt an expert is about to debunk all I've written here.
That's part of the problem-too many people have a million reasons why common sense applied in other sports won't work.
If defensive backs and linebackers can be taught to unlearn all they've ever been taught about tackling, and running backs can be taught not to lower their helmets(new for 2013-14),and my son can adapt to a bat 7 ounces(33%) heavier, surely we (and golf)can function hitting the ball slightly shorter.
If you disagree, and don't want to give up your yardage, I get it, and that's OK.
I just grow tired of technical reasons why it's impossible (given all the geniuses working on golf balls and clubs) to create a ball that goes a reasonable amount shorter.
Roll back to what?-pick a number-let's say 1990. Pull out the driving yardages of elite players of that era and create a ball that simulates that based on stats today.
and yes I'm aware fitness,agronomy, equipment, athletes, and other factors play a part in that equation. (although I haven't worked out a minute since high school football and still hit it 20 yards further at age 50 than I ever did at 20)
Of course we can debate what's reasonable and what's a reasonable era to roll back to.
Or we can get to work and solve the problem, rather than worrying about stupid things like anchoring and grooves.
and no, I don't anchor and my wedges are 25 years old, and I do use a modern ball and driver.
-
Garland,
I think you need to study the topic a lot more before opining. Try reading this article from Scientific American as a start on understanding dimples.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=how-do-dimples-in-golf-ba (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=how-do-dimples-in-golf-ba)
Second you could read the Quintavalla report (there's aPDF that you can link to through this summary of the report. The detailed report talks about spin in passing. You'd be interested to know that spin increases as swing speed increases.
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-/)
High spin rates are the reason that balls, old or new, balloon. What do you think the primary causes of spin with a driver are? Hint, it's the spin angle and the swing speed. Read and watch these two links.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Z5860T8Dec (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Z5860T8Dec)
www.andrewricegolf.com/tag/clubface/ (http://www.andrewricegolf.com/tag/clubface/)
Given your (lack of) understanding of the physics of striking a golf ball and what controls a ball's flight, I'd leave the design of a rolled back ball to the people who know what they are doing. As the article in the opening post said - it's complicated.
Bryan,
You may think I am obsessing about spin. Or, I may just be emphasizing one of the most important factors. As far as I have seen, we have had one informed report here on what the USGA might be thinking about ball regulation. That was the report of Dan Hermann who reported on a test he participated in with the USGA on a reduced distance ball. The factor the USGA was testing was higher spin rates. He reported that, if I recall correctly, he lost a small amount of distance with the higher spin ball, while his wife gained a small amount of distance with the higher spin ball.
The study you report from the USGA does not report on the effect of spin. Therefore, I don't think it is pertinent.
One report I have seen here said larger dimples would increase spin (that may have been Dan also). I don't understand that, but if you were to say larger dimples would increase the effect on the curving flight of the ball, that would make sense to me. So it would seem that larger dimples and a relatively high rate of spin may be why the old balls ballooned up when struck at a high rate of speed, thereby reducing distance significantly.
The study you report from the USGA does not report on dimple size either. Still not pertinent.
-
A.G.
And I'll continue to ask this question:
Who pays for the R&D for the development of a ball that:
a. may not be achievable
b. will be viewed by the masses an inferior product
If I'm Titleist, Bridgestone, Nike, Callaway, Srixon, etc., my answer is "Not ME!"
A ball that goes shorter is certainly achievable assuming silly people don't try to over-spec how it's to be achieved.
I agree the masses will see it as inferior.
Who pays for the R&D? My humble suggestion - the USGA has a war chest, why not have the USGA give grants to the manufacturers to aid in the R&D in return for no threat of litigation. Better to spend the money on R&D for a worthy cause than on lawyers to litigate.
Roll back to what? A distance standard that results in balls that go lesser distances than Pinnacles do now? More spin so badly hit balls curve like boomerangs? Soft covers that cut easily? What EXACTLY is the USGA going to mandate?
Roll back the ODS to 290 (or the number of your choice) yards for all balls. Then let the manufacturers figure out how to do it. You could try to regulate the slope and linearity of the distance/swing speed line, but it then gets way more complicated to design and build and to police. IMHO, this is a nightmare can of worms.
-
Jeff,
I just grow tired of technical reasons why it's impossible (given all the geniuses working on golf balls and clubs) to create a ball that goes a reasonable amount shorter.
I don't think anybody who understands the physics is saying that it is "impossible". It's definitely possible, but not simple. There are many ways to get there and the manufacturers can figure it out. What is lacking is a consensus will to do something about it. And, I agree with Mike and Patrick, don't just go after the ball, go after the driver as well. It took both to get where we are and it should take further regulation of both for us to regress. ;)
-
Clearly with too much time on my hands I spent a while on a monitor today hitting a Pro V1, a (probably) 15 year old Titleist Tour Balata 100 and a (probably) 14 year old Titleist Professional 100. Now, I'd bet that the two old Titleists have lost a bit of their pop over the years, but it was worth a try. The monitor I was on was questionable on clubhead speed, but it was near what my speed is on more accurate monitors and the club speeds were pretty consistent. I don't have a robot-like swing so there is plenty of variation amongst the results within each ball, but I think the average results are indicative. I believe the ball speed and spin are reasonably accurate. The distances are, of course, dependent on the system's algorithm, but they are comparable to my results on other more accurate monitors.
(http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee260/350dtm/ModernandOldBallDistanceComparison.jpg)
Not surprisingly (given they are 15 years old) the old balls were about 9 yards shorter than the Pro V1. The ball speeds were about 3 mph slower. The Professional was surprisingly close in spin, while the Tour Balata was significantly higher. Despite the extra spin with the Tour Balata, the distances weren't any shorter than the Professional.
I now have one point I could put on the Quintavalla chart - a point about 9 yards lower at around 99 mph. Now all I need is a person who swings at at 90 mph and another at 110 mph and another who swings at 120 mph and I'd have a rough cut at what the old ball and modern driver distance/swing speed line would be. Sadly, I don't know where to find those two people. :'(
-
Clearly with too much time on my hands I spent a while on a monitor today hitting a Pro V1, a (probably) 15 year old Titleist Tour Balata 100 and a (probably) 14 year old Titleist Professional 100. Now, I'd bet that the two old Titleists have lost a bit of their pop over the years, but it was worth a try. The monitor I was on was questionable on clubhead speed, but it was near what my speed is on more accurate monitors and the club speeds were pretty consistent. I don't have a robot-like swing so there is plenty of variation amongst the results within each ball, but I think the average results are indicative. I believe the ball speed and spin are reasonably accurate. The distances are, of course, dependent on the system's algorithm, but they are comparable to my results on other more accurate monitors.
(http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee260/350dtm/ModernandOldBallDistanceComparison.jpg)
Not surprisingly (given they are 15 years old) the old balls were about 9 yards shorter than the Pro V1. The ball speeds were about 3 mph slower. The Professional was surprisingly close in spin, while the Tour Balata was significantly higher. Despite the extra spin with the Tour Balata, the distances weren't any shorter than the Professional.
I now have one point I could put on the Quintavalla chart - a point about 9 yards lower at around 99 mph. Now all I need is a person who swings at at 90 mph and another at 110 mph and another who swings at 120 mph and I'd have a rough cut at what the old ball and modern driver distance/swing speed line would be. Sadly, I don't know where to find those two people. :'(
Nice!
Your smash factor was pretty consistent, especially given the Titleist Tour Balata was probably their worst ball ever!
Wonder how much "energy" an old Professional or Tour Balata loses over time. Would imagine windings would degrade?
smash spread is 1.42 to 1.49*
I have some wound balls as well, may have to try some experiments when I'm healthy :)
-
Golf balls do NOT go farther than they used to go 25 years ago. PREMIUM golf balls go farther than they used to go 25 years ago! I used to use a Pinnacle or TopFlite off the tee in scrambles, then balata, or later a Professional, into the greens. Now I don't bother to switch because my Bridgestone RX goes as far as the Pinnacle anyway. A ProV1x is basically a Pinnacle with a soft cover.
Bullshit. I used to hit random balls like Top Flight and Pinnacle in scrambles back in the 80s and 90s, and I never hit a drive that carried 300 yards. Probably didn't come within 20 yards of doing so. But somehow in the early to mid 00s, when I was in my mid 30s to around 40 and swung more within myself than I used to when I was younger, I managed to do so often enough that it was not at all a freak occurrence. I'm talking flat ground, no wind, no elevation, just normal conditions. I know, must be improved fitness and nutrition that caused that! That might have been around the time I started taking a daily multivitamin ;)
I noticed the difference between the rock flites and the balata/professional balls not by their carry distance off the driver, but by their roll. In that, with the rocks I actually got roll, something I only saw on very firm ground with the spinnier balls. I hit the ball so damn high even with a 6.5* driver that it'd just balloon up in the air and roll very little after landing. That was a terrible driver trajectory to have pre-Pro V1. The Pro V1 changed things to where you wanted the high launch angle and rather than ballooning and dropping like a dead duck it flattened at the top and soared for extra yards. Suddenly my biggest problem with the driver became an asset. If the Pro V1 is just a 80s/90s rock that doesn't suck around the greens, how come I didn't see that soaring trajectory with those? They ballooned up too, they just landed with less spin so they still rolled unless it was pretty wet.
Not to mention that hitting the Pro V1 into a strong wind was massively different than hitting a 90s rock into the wind. I used to always play those rocks I'd found the previous season on the first couple rounds of a new season because I always hit more wild ones than usual until I get the kinks worked out. You know, those really windy early spring days. The rocks were easier to control into the wind, no doubt about that - hitting a Professional or Balata into a really strong wind on a tight hole with trouble on both sides was terrifying unless you were really golfing your ball that day and had utter confidence in your swing. I still clearly remember the first time I hit a Pro V1 into a 20 mph wind and I was astounded when I drove it past the 150 yard marker on a 423 yard hole, and even though I felt like I hit it with a bit of a closed face, it just gently drew into the wind rather than violently twisting left into the rough as I would have normally expected for that swing into that wind. It was a huge change from what I was used to, immediately noticeable as something I had never seen before, whether with the Professional, the Balata I played a decade earlier, or the rocks I'd randomly play from time to time. You have to understand, for the ballooning trajectory I'd normally see until that day, I would have been pretty damn happy with a drive to 185 or so. Gaining 40 yards with less worry about losing a not quite perfect shot sideways was massive. For me at least, I think that was the single biggest change with the new ball - one that certainly reduced the required skill to hit a drive into a strong wind.
-
People want to dismiss that problem as a one that applies to only a small fraction of golfers. But that misses the real point. Major championships are critically important to any sport. For all sorts of reasons. One of those reasons is that if the game we see at US Opens or at the Masters starts to de-link from the game us ordinary golfers play, it bodes badly for the future of the game.
Other sports don't have this problem because they are self-regulating. In tennis, for example, no one wants to introduce a new, hot ball because everyone will need to return it. Ditto for baseball. I may hit it farther, but I've also got to pitch and field it. There is no similar inherent constraints on hot new balls in golf. Legislated limits on balls arre supposed to fill in that gap in golf. But the current limits aren't doing what they are supposed to do.
You must not watch or play much tennis...
With the advent of pros using stiffer racquets with stiffer poly strings, the modern tennis players hit so much harder with so much more spin that the game that is played today bear little resemblance to how it was played 20 years ago. A serve and volley players like McEnroe and Sampras would't have a prayer in today's game.
The kind of tennis played in majors have no relations to the game played at my local club by rec players. To suggest that the very best players in any sport need to be relatable to average players is a preposterous suggestion and has no basis in reality.
-
Bullshit. I used to hit random balls like Top Flight and Pinnacle in scrambles back in the 80s and 90s, and I never hit a drive that carried 300 yards. Probably didn't come within 20 yards of doing so. But somehow in the early to mid 00s, when I was in my mid 30s to around 40 and swung more within myself than I used to when I was younger, I managed to do so often enough that it was not at all a freak occurrence. I'm talking flat ground, no wind, no elevation, just normal conditions. I know, must be improved fitness and nutrition that caused that! That might have been around the time I started taking a daily multivitamin ;)
I noticed the difference between the rock flites and the balata/professional balls not by their carry distance off the driver, but by their roll. In that, with the rocks I actually got roll, something I only saw on very firm ground with the spinnier balls. I hit the ball so damn high even with a 6.5* driver that it'd just balloon up in the air and roll very little after landing. That was a terrible driver trajectory to have pre-Pro V1. The Pro V1 changed things to where you wanted the high launch angle and rather than ballooning and dropping like a dead duck it flattened at the top and soared for extra yards. Suddenly my biggest problem with the driver became an asset. If the Pro V1 is just a 80s/90s rock that doesn't suck around the greens, how come I didn't see that soaring trajectory with those? They ballooned up too, they just landed with less spin so they still rolled unless it was pretty wet.
I also studied fluid dynamics and spent a quite of bit of time at wind tunnels. Bryan is correct. It is incorrect to say that with Pro V1's you want a higher launch. You want a higher launch (with lower spin - for fast swingers) because that is how you maximize distance for any flying object. Pro V1's are designed so that it is easier to recreate an ideal launch conditions. Not the other way around.
You can recreate a similar launch condition with rock-flites and pinnacles. They are basically ProV1's without soft covers.
The reason why your past experience is mis-leading is because the ball is not the only variable. Your clubs of the past were not designed to produce an ideal launch condition. Today's drivers have deeper faces with lower center of gravity further away. When combined with a contact point above the center of the clubface, you can launch higher with less spin than what you could produce with drivers from 10-15 years ago.
Go ahead and hit Top-Flites and Pinnacles with you current driver. You will find they fly just as long or even longer than your ProV1s.
-
Golf balls do NOT go farther than they used to go 25 years ago. PREMIUM golf balls go farther than they used to go 25 years ago! I used to use a Pinnacle or TopFlite off the tee in scrambles, then balata, or later a Professional, into the greens. Now I don't bother to switch because my Bridgestone RX goes as far as the Pinnacle anyway. A ProV1x is basically a Pinnacle with a soft cover.
Bullshit. I used to hit random balls like Top Flight and Pinnacle in scrambles back in the 80s and 90s, and I never hit a drive that carried 300 yards. Probably didn't come within 20 yards of doing so. But somehow in the early to mid 00s, when I was in my mid 30s to around 40 and swung more within myself than I used to when I was younger, I managed to do so often enough that it was not at all a freak occurrence. I'm talking flat ground, no wind, no elevation, just normal conditions. I know, must be improved fitness and nutrition that caused that! That might have been around the time I started taking a daily multivitamin ;)
I noticed the difference between the rock flites and the balata/professional balls not by their carry distance off the driver, but by their roll. In that, with the rocks I actually got roll, something I only saw on very firm ground with the spinnier balls. I hit the ball so damn high even with a 6.5* driver that it'd just balloon up in the air and roll very little after landing. That was a terrible driver trajectory to have pre-Pro V1. The Pro V1 changed things to where you wanted the high launch angle and rather than ballooning and dropping like a dead duck it flattened at the top and soared for extra yards. Suddenly my biggest problem with the driver became an asset. If the Pro V1 is just a 80s/90s rock that doesn't suck around the greens, how come I didn't see that soaring trajectory with those? They ballooned up too, they just landed with less spin so they still rolled unless it was pretty wet.
Not to mention that hitting the Pro V1 into a strong wind was massively different than hitting a 90s rock into the wind. I used to always play those rocks I'd found the previous season on the first couple rounds of a new season because I always hit more wild ones than usual until I get the kinks worked out. You know, those really windy early spring days. The rocks were easier to control into the wind, no doubt about that - hitting a Professional or Balata into a really strong wind on a tight hole with trouble on both sides was terrifying unless you were really golfing your ball that day and had utter confidence in your swing. I still clearly remember the first time I hit a Pro V1 into a 20 mph wind and I was astounded when I drove it past the 150 yard marker on a 423 yard hole, and even though I felt like I hit it with a bit of a closed face, it just gently drew into the wind rather than violently twisting left into the rough as I would have normally expected for that swing into that wind. It was a huge change from what I was used to, immediately noticeable as something I had never seen before, whether with the Professional, the Balata I played a decade earlier, or the rocks I'd randomly play from time to time. You have to understand, for the ballooning trajectory I'd normally see until that day, I would have been pretty damn happy with a drive to 185 or so. Gaining 40 yards with less worry about losing a not quite perfect shot sideways was massive. For me at least, I think that was the single biggest change with the new ball - one that certainly reduced the required skill to hit a drive into a strong wind.
Doug,
Thanks for calling my post/opinion bullshit. Greatly appreciated, and a good example of why I don't bother to spend much time on this site anymore.
What driver/shaft combo were you using in those scrambles back in the 80's and 90's? In the 80's, I was using persimmon (didn't even know the loft!) with a steel shaft, and then in the 90's I was using one version or another of the Big Bertha with a stock shaft or the Grafalloy Prolite in it. The Big Bertha was about 225 cc's I think.
I currently use a 460cc Ping K15 with a 56g Xcon5 shaft that I was fit to in an hour and a half session with one of Ping's best fitters in a PingNflight center using a Trackman. I know my launch angle, spin rate, smash factor, clubhead speed, ball speed, and both my carry and overall distances.
-
You can recreate a similar launch condition with rock-flites and pinnacles. They are basically ProV1's without soft covers.
This.
Elite players in the 80's or 90's could have hit drives that were not limited by excessive spin. They just did not like the "rock" covers on those balls being uncontrollable into and around the green. And that's what caught USGA asleep at the switch. They thought that temporary lull in golf ball technology meant that the old ODS would apply only to hacks playing Rock-Flites. The assumption was elite players would always voluntarily play balls with far below optimum distance in order to get those soft rubber covers.
When technology obliterated that assumption, they remained in denial for the better part of a decade while elite players switched to balls limited only by the generous ODS that was designed to put a ceiling on Rock-Flite distance. And honest to god, they are now throat-clearing and sabre-rattling about trying to come up with balls that spin more like the old Balatas for elite players. Apparently USGA still thinks that particular cat can be put back in the bag and they can force elite players to quit actually trying to hit the ball as far as possible.
USGA's power of denial (or belief in its own power to control behavior) is truly impressive. The colossal stupidity of wedge-groove bifurcation being the most obvious case in point.
-
You can recreate a similar launch condition with rock-flites and pinnacles. They are basically ProV1's without soft covers.
This.
Elite players in the 80's or 90's could have hit drives that were not limited by excessive spin. They just did not like the "rock" covers on those balls being uncontrollable into and around the green. And that's what caught USGA asleep at the switch. They thought that temporary lull in golf ball technology meant that the old ODS would apply only to hacks playing Rock-Flites. The assumption was elite players would always voluntarily play balls with far below optimum distance in order to get those soft rubber covers.
When technology obliterated that assumption, they remained in denial for the better part of a decade while elite players switched to balls limited only by the generous ODS that was designed to put a ceiling on Rock-Flite distance. And honest to god, they are now throat-clearing and sabre-rattling about trying to come up with balls that spin more like the old Balatas for elite players. Apparently USGA still thinks that particular cat can be put back in the bag and they can force elite players to quit actually trying to hit the ball as far as possible.
USGA's power of denial (or belief in its own power to control behavior) is truly impressive. The colossal stupidity of wedge-groove bifurcation being the most obvious case in point.
Brent,
To quibble a bit, the changeover for pros and top amateurs from balata to ProV1's didn't take a decade; it was almost overnight as equipment changes go. (View the Professional as a bridge between the two.)
Technology changes in synergies, and at a very, very uneven rate. That the USGA didn't anticipate titanium and therefore MUCH larger clubheads or the changes in golf balls (much less the two occurring almost simultaneously) makes the USGA just like everybody else.
Nobody could have predicted texting while driving as a problem 20 years ago; now it's a huge issue. Nobody could have predicted what has happened in the music industry 20 years ago; I have 900 songs on my phone now and haven't bought an "album" in years, all because of a college kid who realized he could share music files using software developed for college libraries. Who saw Napster coming, much less itunes? Certainly not the recording industry!
I'm willing to give the USGA a break on this. I'm also willing to assume that the USGA is trying to catch up as best it can while preserving both the amateur and professional game under one set of rules. It isn't an easy task, IMO, and the groove rule is a failed attempt at finding a low impact way to do part of that. The ball is not so simple, no matter what so many here like to imagine. Simple answers to complex questions are rarely successful in my experience.
-
Garland,
I think you need to study the topic a lot more before opining. Try reading this article from Scientific American as a start on understanding dimples.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=how-do-dimples-in-golf-ba (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=how-do-dimples-in-golf-ba)
What's your point? That article says exactly what I said. The one difference is that it said changing the size of the dimples would change ball flight without specifying how, whereas I supposed larger dimples might increase movement.
Second you could read the Quintavalla report (there's aPDF that you can link to through this summary of the report. The detailed report talks about spin in passing.
Just a case of my knowing what I mean when I write it, but not thinking well enough about what the reader will think. My intended point was that they did not show results from varying spin rate nor dimple size.
You'd be interested to know that spin increases as swing speed increases.
Well duh!
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-/)
High spin rates are the reason that balls, old or new, balloon.
This is exactly what I have been saying forever. Back when I was young with excessive swing speed I was witness to this excessive ballooning with the balata covered balls.
-
The change was overnight. The decade was the time USGA spent denying that any substantial increase in elite player distance was underway. They "studied" the problem for year after year until finally concluding that it was too late to do anything meaningful about it. I know they can't change the Rules overnight. But I clearly recall year after year of denials that were absolutely absurd.
P.S. And making everyone in the world buy new wedges is hardly "low impact". It's an attempt to do something with an overly clever bank shot instead of addressing the (supposed) problem squarely.
-
Clearly with too much time on my hands I spent a while on a monitor today hitting a Pro V1, a (probably) 15 year old Titleist Tour Balata 100 and a (probably) 14 year old Titleist Professional 100. Now, I'd bet that the two old Titleists have lost a bit of their pop over the years, but it was worth a try. The monitor I was on was questionable on clubhead speed, but it was near what my speed is on more accurate monitors and the club speeds were pretty consistent. I don't have a robot-like swing so there is plenty of variation amongst the results within each ball, but I think the average results are indicative. I believe the ball speed and spin are reasonably accurate. The distances are, of course, dependent on the system's algorithm, but they are comparable to my results on other more accurate monitors.
(http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee260/350dtm/ModernandOldBallDistanceComparison.jpg)
Not surprisingly (given they are 15 years old) the old balls were about 9 yards shorter than the Pro V1. The ball speeds were about 3 mph slower. The Professional was surprisingly close in spin, while the Tour Balata was significantly higher. Despite the extra spin with the Tour Balata, the distances weren't any shorter than the Professional.
I now have one point I could put on the Quintavalla chart - a point about 9 yards lower at around 99 mph. Now all I need is a person who swings at at 90 mph and another at 110 mph and another who swings at 120 mph and I'd have a rough cut at what the old ball and modern driver distance/swing speed line would be. Sadly, I don't know where to find those two people. :'(
Good piece of work Bryan. Note the Balata spins close to 4000, whereas the ProV spins close to 3000 for you. Now if you go back to
http://probablegolfinstruction.com/PGI%20Newsletter/news05-02-04.htm
you can see how the high swing speed player gains disproportionally more at their swing speeds over what you would gain.
-
Golf balls do NOT go farther than they used to go 25 years ago. PREMIUM golf balls go farther than they used to go 25 years ago! I used to use a Pinnacle or TopFlite off the tee in scrambles, then balata, or later a Professional, into the greens. Now I don't bother to switch because my Bridgestone RX goes as far as the Pinnacle anyway. A ProV1x is basically a Pinnacle with a soft cover.
Bullshit. I used to hit random balls like Top Flight and Pinnacle in scrambles back in the 80s and 90s, and I never hit a drive that carried 300 yards. ...
That's just you. I hit Top Flites regularly in the 70s and regularly carried them over 300 yards.
-
The change was overnight. The decade was the time USGA spent denying that any substantial increase in elite player distance was underway. They "studied" the problem for year after year until finally concluding that it was too late to do anything meaningful about it. I know they can't change the Rules overnight. But I clearly recall year after year of denials that were absolutely absurd.
P.S. And making everyone in the world buy new wedges is hardly "low impact". It's an attempt to do something with an overly clever bank shot instead of addressing the (supposed) problem squarely.
I play a lot of golf, including many, many tournaments at the club level. I haven't bought a new wedge yet, and won't have to for at least another decade or so IF the USGA leaves the rule in place. By that time, I imagine I will have either replaced my i5's or stopped playing anyway. The people that have had to buy new wedges almost certainly would have anyway; they replace wedges routinely in the course of their golf careers. The guys on TV change several times a year, and expert amateurs that play state and national level competitions at least every couple of years, for the most part. That's pretty low impact, IMO.
-
The decade was the time USGA spent denying that any substantial increase in elite player distance was underway. They "studied" the problem for year after year until finally concluding that it was too late to do anything meaningful about it. I know they can't change the Rules overnight. But I clearly recall year after year of denials that were absolutely absurd.
P.S. And making everyone in the world buy new wedges is hardly "low impact". It's an attempt to do something with an overly clever bank shot instead of addressing the (supposed) problem squarely.
+1
word for word.
now we gotta get those sneaky yippy bastards with those putters. ::) ::) ::)
Nobody's saying it's simple.
But an organization with 250 MILLION IN THE BANK can surely find a way.
just stop spending limited goodwill on stupid solutions (grooves, anchors) that address nothing about our everchanging fields of play and the disproportionate distance disparity between elite players and good players
Funny how GJ and Bryan can figure out this impossible conundrum, but the USGA can't (won't).
You can pull out all the fancy charts you want, but players with clubhead speeds higher than Bryan gain more distance proportionately with modern equipment than players lower than his speed, which is why a rollback should work exactly the opposite.
It's not socialism just a return to where we were pre ProV 1.
An added bonus would be creativity, shotmaking, and wind management skills would return.
-
...
Clubheads the size of tennis rackets need to be reduced and the maximum length for clubs established.
...
Aren't clubs currently limited to a max 48"?
-
...
Roll back the ODS to 290 (or the number of your choice) yards for all balls. Then let the manufacturers figure out how to do it. You could try to regulate the slope and linearity of the distance/swing speed line, but it then gets way more complicated to design and build and to police. IMHO, this is a nightmare can of worms.
Not sure what you mean by this. If you mean rollback to the old ODS before they increased the distance specified by the ODS, then all balls will pass that test.
If you mean make all balls limit to 290 no matter what, then you are advocating exactly what the USGA decided they couldn't do when the new balls came out and created a problem. You would be obsoleting the vast majority of balls, and creating a great financial hardship for many ball manufacturers.
-
Brent, Bryan,
Are either (or both) of you arguing that because a "roll-back" (and that's an unfortunate phrase, no one really wants a rollback, rather a new, reduced distance specification) would be complicated and difficult, the R&A and USGA shouldn't try?
The original article is at best misleading, by the way. It's well known that both the R&A and USGA have been conducting tests on reduced distance balls for several years now, the balls produced by ball manufacturers and the results have been quite playable. Designing a new ball would be nowhere near as difficult as the article attempts to portray.
-
...
Funny how GJ and Bryan can figure out this impossible conundrum, but the USGA can't (won't).
You can pull out all the fancy charts you want, but players with clubhead speeds higher than Bryan gain more distance proportionately with modern equipment than players lower than his speed, which is why a rollback should work exactly the opposite.
It's not socialism just a return to where we were pre ProV 1.
An added bonus would be creativity, shotmaking, and wind management skills would return.
The roll back I have proposed in the past, addresses the (what I choose to call) unnatural behavior of the ProV1. If you plot the slope of face angle against spin, you get a higher sloped line than you did with all the previous balls before the three piece balls like the ProV1. Regulate the slope of this line. It lets all rockflite like balls in, which is exactly the conundrum the USGA faced and couldn't solve when they dallied on taking action against the 3 piece ball. The first time I proposed it, it was criticized here for being to difficult to determine, but now every Tom, Dick, and Bryan Izatt have the technology to determine the spin rates.
I actually have been of the opinion that the USGA and R&A may be using wedge grooves and putter anchoring to build up to ball roll back when the three piece ball patents expire in a few years.
-
Clearly with too much time on my hands I spent a while on a monitor today hitting a Pro V1, a (probably) 15 year old Titleist Tour Balata 100 and a (probably) 14 year old Titleist Professional 100. Now, I'd bet that the two old Titleists have lost a bit of their pop over the years, but it was worth a try. The monitor I was on was questionable on clubhead speed, but it was near what my speed is on more accurate monitors and the club speeds were pretty consistent. I don't have a robot-like swing so there is plenty of variation amongst the results within each ball, but I think the average results are indicative. I believe the ball speed and spin are reasonably accurate. The distances are, of course, dependent on the system's algorithm, but they are comparable to my results on other more accurate monitors.
(http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee260/350dtm/ModernandOldBallDistanceComparison.jpg)
Not surprisingly (given they are 15 years old) the old balls were about 9 yards shorter than the Pro V1. The ball speeds were about 3 mph slower. The Professional was surprisingly close in spin, while the Tour Balata was significantly higher. Despite the extra spin with the Tour Balata, the distances weren't any shorter than the Professional.
I now have one point I could put on the Quintavalla chart - a point about 9 yards lower at around 99 mph. Now all I need is a person who swings at at 90 mph and another at 110 mph and another who swings at 120 mph and I'd have a rough cut at what the old ball and modern driver distance/swing speed line would be. Sadly, I don't know where to find those two people. :'(
I swing pretty close to 110 (probably average 107) and have plenty of titleist balatas, professionals and prov1's. I'll hit some on a monitor in the next few days and provide the data to you.
-
Brent, Bryan,
Are either (or both) of you arguing that because a "roll-back" (and that's an unfortunate phrase, no one really wants a rollback, rather a new, reduced distance specification) would be complicated and difficult, the R&A and USGA shouldn't try?
The original article is at best misleading, by the way. It's well known that both the R&A and USGA have been conducting tests on reduced distance balls for several years now, the balls produced by ball manufacturers and the results have been quite playable. Designing a new ball would be nowhere near as difficult as the article attempts to portray.
Not at all. A reduction in the performance of the golf ball can either be done (legally, politically) or it can not. I am totally unqualified to judge that probability. All I'm saying is technically if it is going to be at all, it needs to be done in a straightforward manner because any attempt to out-clever the industry or the elite players will either be laughably ineffective or it will backfire with unintended consequences.
If the "problem" is defined as Today's Golf Ball Flies Too Far When Struck By Elite Players then the "solution" can only be to require that Golf Balls In Future Fly Less Far When Struck By Elite Players. There is no "exponential curve" and futzing around with spin or dimples without an outright distance restriction is sure to fail. Specify what you want to happen, don't specify unrelated parameters in the vain hope that it ought to somehow indirectly result in less distance.
-
...
If the "problem" is defined as Today's Golf Ball Flies Too Far When Struck By Elite Players then the "solution" can only be to require that Golf Balls In Future Fly Less Far When Struck By Elite Players. There is no "exponential curve" and futzing around with spin or dimples without an outright distance restriction is sure to fail. Specify what you want to happen, don't specify unrelated parameters in the vain hope that it ought to somehow indirectly result in less distance.
I don't get what you mean. There is and has been an outright distance restriction. It failed, and continues to fail.
-
No, they had a distance restriction governing how far the ball could travel when struck by an old wooden club at 60's vintage clubhead speeds. That was accompanied by an assumption that if you hit the ball much harder than that it would be so uncontrollable that no good player would bother.
Then balls came to market that when struck much, much harder by a much, much superior club by an elite player could in fact be controlled. To no ones surprise but the USGA's, the result was distance far beyond their "ODS" number.
So they dithered around "studying" the problem for a few years and then basically shrugged their shoulders and accepted the new status quo. They updated the testing regime and set a new limit based on how far modern golf balls of the day were travelling when struck at somewhat more realistic elite-player clubhead speeds with somewhat more realistic impact conditions. No actual reduction in allowed distance occurred.
And that's the situation we have now. Players are hitting the ball the better part of a hundred yards longer than the old test ever reckoned was possible and controlling it nicely, thank you very much. Since the new, more realistic standard had its parameters set to avoid ruling any ball that existed in the mid-2000's non-conforming it had to be set pretty darned high. Not surprisingly, the strongest players are now swinging even faster and the optimized ball/driver equipment is performing slightly better than even a few years ago. That will continue.
So having sat on the sidelines when it was (arguably) possible to rein in ball speeds and distances early in the modern era, they are now stuck with two unappealing options. Continue to do nothing and let the prevailing standard of course setup for elite competition get longer and longer or try to convince the industry and the players to see the parameters of the ball test "rolled back" to 5, 10, 15 percent less distance than the current Rules allow.
P.S. My prediction is they will, a couple years hence, come up with some ill-advised ruling that some "tournament ball" be used at the highest levels of competition [sic]. And that even that ball will not be distance limited but will have some sort of high-spin specification. I further predict that the result is the strongest players will continue to hit it farther and farther but also crookeder, thereby necessitating courses that are both longer and with more buffer area for safety.
The reason I predict this is because I believe all USGA rule making recently has been motivated by a desire to somehow force the game to be played as it was in that comfortable interregnum during which the elite player preference for wound balata balls made rule-making trivially easy. Rather than deal with the world as it is, they are trying their damndest to force the world to go back to how it was when they did know how to deal with it.
-
Phew, That was alot of reading getting through all of those posts and getting to this point.
The head guy at Nike Balls, excuse that title, has told me he can produce a ball that is comparable in durabilibty to the modern ball but matches the distances of the Old balatas any day you want them.
For what that is worth.
-
Phew, That was alot of reading getting through all of those posts and getting to this point.
The head guy at Nike Balls, excuse that title, has told me he can produce a ball that is comparable in durabilibty to the modern ball but matches the distances of the Old balatas any day you want them.
For what that is worth.
No doubt true, but that's not the issue, is it? Of course a ball can be made that ALL of us will hit shorter distances!
The issue is not whether or not a shorter ball can be produced; it is whether the ball can (or should!) be shorter for long hitters but not shorter for short hitters. MOST (though not all) agree that making everybody use a shorter ball than the Pinnacle/TopFlite type ball which now has a premium cover is not a winning strategy for the golf industry.
And MOST (though not all) also agree that bifurcation is not desirable.
And therein lies the difficulty.
-
No, they had a distance restriction governing how far the ball could travel when struck by an old wooden club at 60's vintage clubhead speeds. That was accompanied by an assumption that if you hit the ball much harder than that it would be so uncontrollable that no good player would bother.
Then balls came to market that when struck much, much harder by a much, much superior club by an elite player could in fact be controlled. To no ones surprise but the USGA's, the result was distance far beyond their "ODS" number.
So they dithered around "studying" the problem for a few years and then basically shrugged their shoulders and accepted the new status quo. They updated the testing regime and set a new limit based on how far modern golf balls of the day were travelling when struck at somewhat more realistic elite-player clubhead speeds with somewhat more realistic impact conditions. No actual reduction in allowed distance occurred.
The did not "set a new limit". The limit is the same. It has just been updated with modern clubheads speeds, but is derived from the old limit, so it does not (or certainly is not intended to) let balls travel farther than the old limit did.
And that's the situation we have now. Players are hitting the ball the better part of a hundred yards longer than the old test ever reckoned was possible and controlling it nicely, thank you very much.
The average driving distance in 1999 was 272. The average driving distance in 2011 was 291. How is this "the better part of a hundred yards"?
Since the new, more realistic standard had its parameters set to avoid ruling any ball that existed in the mid-2000's non-conforming it had to be set pretty darned high. Not surprisingly, the strongest players are now swinging even faster and the optimized ball/driver equipment is performing slightly better than even a few years ago. That will continue.
Again, there was no setting to "pretty darned high".
So having sat on the sidelines when it was (arguably) possible to rein in ball speeds and distances early in the modern era,
Ball speeds have long been regulated. There is no reining in to do. Ball speed was reined in a long time ago. Even before the distance standard was set.
they are now stuck with two unappealing options. Continue to do nothing and let the prevailing standard of course setup for elite competition get longer and longer or try to convince the industry and the players to see the parameters of the ball test "rolled back" to 5, 10, 15 percent less distance than the current Rules allow.
P.S. My prediction is they will, a couple years hence, come up with some ill-advised ruling that some "tournament ball" be used at the highest levels of competition [sic]. And that even that ball will not be distance limited but will have some sort of high-spin specification. I further predict that the result is the strongest players will continue to hit it farther and farther but also crookeder, thereby necessitating courses that are both longer and with more buffer area for safety.
The reason I predict this is because I believe all USGA rule making recently has been motivated by a desire to somehow force the game to be played as it was in that comfortable interregnum during which the elite player preference for wound balata balls made rule-making trivially easy. Rather than deal with the world as it is, they are trying their damndest to force the world to go back to how it was when they did know how to deal with it.
-
The comment about "better part of 100 yards" was comparing today to something more like 1949 than 1999. Back when wooden clubs and rubber-band wound balls were the only realistic options for good players and back when the test they were still using in 1999 was actually meaningful.
All I know is this. If they want elite players NOT to be hitting the ball such-and-such distances in the year 2033 then they have to enforce a meaningful limit on ball speed AND carry distance as measured at the clubhead speeds likely to prevail at that time for the strongest players. If you don't want a 150mph swing to propel the ball at 220mph and see it travel 400 yards through the air then make a rule that say just how far a ball is allowed to travel when struck at 150mph.
Don't make a rule intended to make 130mph swingers today hold back and not try to swing 150mph tomorrow. Or a rule that tweaks the dimples on a Pro V1 to produce a ball that upshots and flies crooked. Cleverness is not going to work. Not for long, anyway.
-
Phew, That was alot of reading getting through all of those posts and getting to this point.
The head guy at Nike Balls, excuse that title, has told me he can produce a ball that is comparable in durabilibty to the modern ball but matches the distances of the Old balatas any day you want them.
For what that is worth.
No doubt true, but that's not the issue, is it? Of course a ball can be made that ALL of us will hit shorter distances!
The issue is not whether or not a shorter ball can be produced; it is whether the ball can (or should!) be shorter for long hitters but not shorter for short hitters. MOST (though not all) agree that making everybody use a shorter ball than the Pinnacle/TopFlite type ball which now has a premium cover is not a winning strategy for the golf industry.
And MOST (though not all) also agree that bifurcation is not desirable.
And therein lies the difficulty.
In reality that SHOULD be the issue, nothing else matters, a shorter ball for everyone, just as with the Balaltas.
We shouldnt even be wasting our time trying to pinpoit who loses the most length, just a shorter ball.
Big hitters will still be big hitters and shorter sraighter hitters like me will hit more fairways, that is all we should be worrying about...if even that!!
-
Phew, That was alot of reading getting through all of those posts and getting to this point.
The head guy at Nike Balls, excuse that title, has told me he can produce a ball that is comparable in durabilibty to the modern ball but matches the distances of the Old balatas any day you want them.
For what that is worth.
No doubt true, but that's not the issue, is it? Of course a ball can be made that ALL of us will hit shorter distances!
The issue is not whether or not a shorter ball can be produced; it is whether the ball can (or should!) be shorter for long hitters but not shorter for short hitters. MOST (though not all) agree that making everybody use a shorter ball than the Pinnacle/TopFlite type ball which now has a premium cover is not a winning strategy for the golf industry.
And MOST (though not all) also agree that bifurcation is not desirable.
And therein lies the difficulty.
In reality that SHOULD be the issue, nothing else matters, a shorter ball for everyone, just as with the Balaltas.
We shouldnt even be wasting our time trying to pinpoit who loses the most length, just a shorter ball.
Big hitters will still be big hitters and shorter sraighter hitters like me will hit more fairways, that is all we should be worrying about...if even that!!
Michael,
Most players did NOT use balata back in the day. They used other, cheaper, more durable balls that also went much farther. You are in effect asking for a standard that exceeds the balata standard. This isn't realistic or wise.
-
Comparing PGA and LPGA tour stats shows evidence that stronger players have gained more in distance in the last 20 or so years. Thsi obviously covers all tech gains and other changes which are harder to quantify (fitness? course speed?).
Of course the adoption of tech may be slightly different for the two tours. I suspect that the solid ball was more widely used on the LPGA tour in the 1990s when compared with the PGA tour...so that might be one reason that the gain has been less.
Estimate the stats from both tours cover current swing speeds of approx 90-95Mph (weakest 10% LPGA) to 125-130Mph (strongest 10% PGA).
(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8538/8617492070_270b3fcac2_b.jpg)
About a 7yard extra for the strongest PGA relative to weakest LPGA
(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8256/8617492032_b160235a95_b.jpg)
Slightly closer together.. 5yd or so comparing the strongest LPGA with weakest PGA
(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8528/8617492030_c051aa8233_b.jpg)
No difference within the PGA tour. Same as in the USGA report.
(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8398/8617492056_b10cace321_b.jpg)
Small advantage for the strongest LPGA when compared with the weakest.
-
What the non-balata Tour ball brought into play was the end to a precarious equilibrium based on a peculiar historical contingency of golf ball design.
In effect, the best players were all in agreement not to hit the ball as far as possible during a period of several decades. At any time during the 70's or 80's a Tour player could have used a hard-cover ball and hit it farther than his contemporaries on Tour. It never became a popular choice because of the severe limitations (perceived limitations at any rate) in performance green-side. So everyone was happy, the Tour players (influence leaders) got their Balata balls for free, the ball makers sold them at very high prices (given how easily damaged each ball was) to wanna-be elite players and being a "long hitter" or a "short hitter" was constrained to a relatively small total range on Tour.
Such an equilibrium could not last. Someone, somewhere was bound to figure out a way to make higher performance (w.r.t. distance) balls acceptable to elite players green-side. Once that happened, it was inevitable that a few then many then all Tour players would bail out of the gentleman's agreement as to the range of "long" to "short" on Tour. Everybody could now be Longer Than Long Used To Be. And so they did.
I do not think USGA can stuff that particular genie back in the bottle. Once they've seen the big city, yada, yada, yada. But that's what you guys are asking for. You want USGA to somehow make it so unattractive for an elite player to try and hit it as far as possible under the distance standard the rest of us live by, that they'll go back to playing sub-optimum equipment and we can imagine that we're Not Really All That Far Behind our betters in the game. The whinging in this thread is basically down to Why Should They Hit It Twice As Far As Me Just Because They Can Swing Twice As Hard?
I am perfectly happy knowing that with whatever ball I can poot my little 200-yarders out there, someone like Bubba Watson can hit it 400 yards. Why shouldn't it be otherwise? Look at him, look at me. The good news is, if you cut back the performance of the ball (distance performance and ball speed, not namby-pamby spin numbers) by 20% that's going to cost Bubba 80 yards (thereby saving 80 yards per hole of real estate) while only costing me 40 yards which after a while I'll barely notice. After all I hit lots of badly struck tee shots every day that come up 40 yards short and I don't despair.
-
Comparing PGA and LPGA tour stats shows evidence that stronger players have gained more in distance in the last 20 or so years. Thsi obviously covers all tech gains and other changes which are harder to quantify (fitness? course speed?).
As much as I appreciate Paul taking the trouble to post those graphs (and Paul, I do appreciate it very much) the statistician/geek in me has to point out that the charted numbers are potentially very misleading. The "gains" should be plotted as percentage gains, not absolute numbers. Without knowing distances at baseline, it's hard to know if 25 yards increase for an LPGA player is more or less than 30 yards increase for a PGA Tour player.
P.S. Given the tenor of this discussion I realize not everyone will agree with that characterization. For some people, apparently to gain 5 yards on a 300-yard drive and only 4 yards on a 200-yard drive is unfair as hell. After all they get an extra yard just because they swing so hard and hit it so far!
-
AG
I was just using the word Balata as a general term.
I dont think it matters what the damn ball is made of if "dialing it back" is the issue just do it.
I dont care if it is to Pro Traj 100 specs , the specs of the old Dt or Maxfli Revolution or even the Top Flite lets quit quibbling about who is going to get hurt the most, lets all get hurt.
Golf courses will still be great at 6800 yards, we can save money on"restorations" and as I said we will still have long hitters just like we always did.
Players can still use "longer" balls just like they always did, but they just wont go as far.
I jus dont see why it is that hard of an issue to solve,IF somebody wnats to, which of course they DONT.
-
Brent
I kind of agree, but I think the absolute numbers are useful too...it implies that some parts of tech "switch on" more at some strength threshold but then flattens out (due to competing factors like COR drop?). Why is there no trend within PGA tour but there is between tours and a small one within the LPGA tour?
It's not a huge effect though...5-7 yards for Bubba and Co vs the weakest LPGA players (name?).
-
Brent
I kind of agree, but I think the absolute numbers are useful too...it implies that some parts of tech "switch on" more at some strength threshold. Why is there no trend within PGA tour but there is between tours and a small one within the LPGA tour.
It's not a huge effect though...5-7 yards for Bubba and Co vs the weakest LPGA player (name?).
So presumably using 1992 equipment Bubba would hit it, what, let's say 100 yards longer than the shortest LPGA player and now he'll hit it 106 yards longer than the shortest LPGA player? That's on the same order as noise in the data, hardly a basis for justifying rule changes or not.
-
Brent
Approximately yes but it's more like a 75yards difference between the two groups has now become 80-85 yards difference.
I shouldn't have really used the name Bubba because there can be some larger noisy changes in the "tails" i.e. a single player can in a given year be 5 yards longer than anyone else and similarly at the bottom you can a laggard that 5-10 yards shorter. Which is why I used deciles.
-
I still don't understand why anyone, including USGA, cares about 99% of the courses out there being obsolete for 0.01% of the players.
-
Richard,
Kind of my point, either do something or dont, quit bitching and moaning and concentrate on speeding up play and banning anchored putters ;)
-
I still don't understand why anyone, including USGA, cares about 99% of the courses out there being obsolete for 0.01% of the players.
Because it puts an emphasis on length in peoples minds that causes every client to insist on courses over 7000 yards from their architects. Most architects aren't in a position to tell the client they won't do a course that long, but instead make the concession. That means golf course construction and operating costs go beyond what they have to.
It puts an emphasis on length in peoples minds that causes them to dismiss shorter courses as being inferior, when as we know here, they are often actually superior.
Because it causes architects to build six or seven tees to try to satisfy everyone, while segregating people and in reality satisfying few.
...
-
Why do you care that people with more money and ego than brains, build courses that will be more expensive to build/sustain than necessary? If the market won't support it it will just go bankrupt and the following owners will dial it down. Why is it USGA's job to stop stupid people from making stupid decisions?
-
The comment about "better part of 100 yards" was comparing today to something more like 1949 than 1999. Back when wooden clubs and rubber-band wound balls were the only realistic options for good players and back when the test they were still using in 1999 was actually meaningful.
Doesn't matter. They were not averaging 241 yards off the tee in 1949 so that you can round off the distance to 100.
All I know is this. If they want elite players NOT to be hitting the ball such-and-such distances in the year 2033 then they have to enforce a meaningful limit on ball speed AND carry distance as measured at the clubhead speeds likely to prevail at that time for the strongest players. If you don't want a 150mph swing to propel the ball at 220mph and see it travel 400 yards through the air then make a rule that say just how far a ball is allowed to travel when struck at 150mph.
IMO this is the most impractical rules suggestion I have ever seen on this matter.
Don't make a rule intended to make 130mph swingers today hold back and not try to swing 150mph tomorrow. Or a rule that tweaks the dimples on a Pro V1 to produce a ball that upshots and flies crooked. Cleverness is not going to work. Not for long, anyway.
There is no attempt to make swingers hold back. They can swing as hard as they want to and see what they get. Even with the modern ball they are already holding back to make it on the PGA Tour. Many of the Nationwide tour guys have told how they have had to dial it back significantly to survive on the PGA Tour once they qualify.
Great players like Jack used their strength wisely and judiciously. Just look at how much Tiger currently dials it back even with the current technology.
The history of regulation addresses the factor that caused the need for regulation.
Balls got too hot. The initial velocity standard was put in place.
Some balls went too far even with initial velocity regulation. The ODS standard was put in place.
Balls flew too straight by using dimple mods. The dimple regulation standard was put in place.
Now that spin has been manipulated to make balls go farther than intended given existing regulations, IMO it is time to regulate spin.
Was it A.G. that wanted to know if people would play "inferior" balls? Clearly they will, because there are superior balls that have only a small segment of the marketplace.
-
Why do you care that people with more money and ego than brains, build courses that will be more expensive to build/sustain than necessary? If the market won't support it it will just go bankrupt and the following owners will dial it down. Why is it USGA's job to stop stupid people from making stupid decisions?
Actually Richard, my concern is that people will ignore the good courses that cannot be stretched longer for physical or financial reasons. When these courses go under because someone has built trash nearby that meets the paying public's perception that long is good, then I see a problem.
-
I have yet to hear average golfers avoid courses because they are too short. They avoid courses for many reasons, too boring, too poor conditions, too busy, too expensive, etc., but never too short. In fact the most popular course in my area is a muni that plays at 5700 yards. It is impossible to get a tee time there!!! So what real problem is this supposed to be addressing?
The only reason USGA is on this unholy warpath is because of their delusional devotion to "protecting par", which has no relation to 99.9% of the golfing public it is supposed to serve. This quixotic obsession needs to stop.
-
I have yet to hear average golfers avoid courses because they are too short. They avoid courses for many reasons, too boring, too poor conditions, too busy, too expensive, etc., but never too short. In fact the most popular course in my area is a muni that plays at 5700 yards. It is impossible to get a tee time there!!! So what real problem is this supposed to be addressing?
The only reason USGA is on this unholy warpath is because of their delusional devotion to "protecting par", which has no relation to 99.9% of the golfing public it is supposed to serve. This quixotic obsession needs to stop.
Richard,
I hear everything you say, but, golfers are a unique breed, for some reason they want to play the same course that the PGA Tour Pros play.
Most clubs hosting a major notice a huge increase in guest play from the time the event is awarded until a year or so after the event.
And, invariably, many golfers want to play the course that the PGA Tour Pros will be playing.
I don't know if you remember the thread on ANGC and it's now 7,500 yard length and how many insisted that if given an invitation to ANGC that they would play it at 7,500, despite the fact that it's well beyond their ability.
For some reason, over the last 30 or so years, difficulty has been equated with quality.
And, difficulty is inextricably tied to length.
Golfers seem to revel in getting beat up by long, difficult courses and they tend to pooh pooh shorter courses
That's just the nature of the lunatic golfing mentality in us all.
-
And the most popular course where it is impossible to get a tee time at in New York is the longest. ;D
A private club has to attract serious golfers, because the cost dictates they play a lot. I've been told that our club, being < 6000 yards has people deciding against joining, because it is too short. IMHO or perhaps IMPO there is nothing they would be playing in the area that comes close to the course quality at a similar cost level.
The only way to get better quality is to go to a much higher price point at Royal Oaks.
-
"I don't know if you remember the thread on ANGC and it's now 7,500 yard length and how many insisted that if given an invitation to ANGC that they would play it at 7,500, despite the fact that it's well beyond their ability."
Pat M. -
Other than for the Masters, is really possible to play AGNC at that length? I have always been under the impression that, for the balance of the golf season at AGNC, the course plays from the much shorter "Members" tees.
DT
-
"I don't know if you remember the thread on ANGC and it's now 7,500 yard length and how many insisted that if given an invitation to ANGC that they would play it at 7,500, despite the fact that it's well beyond their ability."
Pat M. -
Other than for the Masters, is really possible to play AGNC at that length?
Absolutely.
You can play the tees of your choice, Masters or Members, but, you'd better have the ability to handle the Masters tees or I doubt that you'd be reinvited.
I always played the Masters tees until they made the quantum leap to 7,500 which is far beyond my ability and far beyond my enjoyment level.
I have always been under the impression that, for the balance of the golf season at AGNC, the course plays from the much shorter "Members" tees.
No, both tees are available for play during the course of the season.
But, the fact is, at 7,500 and cooler weather in Nov, Dec, Jan, Feb and March, only exceptional golfers or morons ;D would play the Masters tees.
-
Pat M. -
Thanks for the clarification. For some reason I always thought all play was from the Members tees aside from Masters week.
DT
-
Last time I checked, Pine Valley is not the longest course around. But I don't think they are having much trouble getting members...
I've got a news for you. These private courses are having membership issues because the younger generation does not have the discretionary income to spend on initiation fees and monthly dues. The problem is demographic. You can turn everyone of these struggling privates into 9000 yard behemoths and you will STILL have problems with memberships. Hell, the problem would be worse since it is now more expensive to join!
If a course "cannot survive" without adding more tees, perhaps it would be best if that course closed its membership and become a daily fee course. There is nothing good that can come from people obsessing over who has a bigger dick when they are starving.
-
Why do you care that people with more money and ego than brains, build courses that will be more expensive to build/sustain than necessary? If the market won't support it it will just go bankrupt and the following owners will dial it down. Why is it USGA's job to stop stupid people from making stupid decisions?
Richard,
Why do you care that we care?
If you're comfortable with the ball, and it doesn't bother you that every time a major goes to a classic course it is bastardized,good on you.
If you don't care that the costs of the game are driven up by the need for more real estate for lengthening and/or safety corridors, good on you.
You are 100% entitled to your opinion and you can vote with your dollars.
No one's saying the game's too easy, just that the corridors required have to be larger, for a lot more than .01%. I teach several 15 handicappers that hit it 300 yards, often 50-60 yards off line. Big difference between a ball hit 300 ,60 yards off line, and a ball hit 270, 50 yards off line.
A good attorney will advise a course owner he needs more room -that's not a stupid person making a stupid decision-they do plenty of that on their own ;D.
The USGA is the self appointed rulesmaker of the game.
They made rules for a reason, and equipment rules specifically to make golf a game of skill.
Innovation has always been a part of the game, lately it's just accelerated.
The equipment manufacturers found a way to innovate faster than the USGA could regulate, it happens in all sports.
Other sports have responded by adjusting rules accordingly.
I'm completely stunned that people can be against anchoring, which causes no change to our fields of play at any level, yet be in support of balls and equipment that go farther every year, driving change to the fields of play for a variety of reasons, including misguided narrowing of corridors in the name of "protection of par" ::) ::), safety, pace of play, etc.
Talking about it is a start; us rollback freaks may find out we're a minority, and the talk will go away.
Or perhaps we're not, and dialogue is a positive beginning.
As Brent says, it took the USGA 10 years to aknowledge the ball went farther, then decided it was too late to do anything (unless of course it's a putting technique that's been around 20-30 years)
Put another way, I think golf would be better on a 6900 yard course with greens and tees proportionately closer vs. a 7500 yard course with tees and greens proportionately farther apart, using a ball that goes 10% shorter, and playing whatever tees one wants to. You still have to walk by the back tees, unless they're making you walk backwards, which is even worse.
In a world fighting for additional leisure time, only golf is expanding its real estate needs and wondering why it tales longer to walk and play 10% more real estate.
Will we still say golf is evolving when elite players are driving it 500 yards?
Guess it will help me with wedge sales though ;)
-
Last time I checked, Pine Valley is not the longest course around. But I don't think they are having much trouble getting members...
I've got a news for you. These private courses are having membership issues because the younger generation does not have the discretionary income to spend on initiation fees and monthly dues. The problem is demographic. You can turn everyone of these struggling privates into 9000 yard behemoths and you will STILL have problems with memberships. Hell, the problem would be worse since it is now more expensive to join!
No, I've got news for you. There is no initiation fee, and play 6 times a month and you are already ahead on dues.
If a course "cannot survive" without adding more tees, perhaps it would be best if that course closed its membership and become a daily fee course. There is nothing good that can come from people obsessing over who has a bigger dick when they are starving.
-
Clearly with too much time on my hands I spent a while on a monitor today hitting a Pro V1, a (probably) 15 year old Titleist Tour Balata 100 and a (probably) 14 year old Titleist Professional 100. Now, I'd bet that the two old Titleists have lost a bit of their pop over the years, but it was worth a try. The monitor I was on was questionable on clubhead speed, but it was near what my speed is on more accurate monitors and the club speeds were pretty consistent. I don't have a robot-like swing so there is plenty of variation amongst the results within each ball, but I think the average results are indicative. I believe the ball speed and spin are reasonably accurate. The distances are, of course, dependent on the system's algorithm, but they are comparable to my results on other more accurate monitors.
(http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee260/350dtm/ModernandOldBallDistanceComparison.jpg)
Not surprisingly (given they are 15 years old) the old balls were about 9 yards shorter than the Pro V1. The ball speeds were about 3 mph slower. The Professional was surprisingly close in spin, while the Tour Balata was significantly higher. Despite the extra spin with the Tour Balata, the distances weren't any shorter than the Professional.
I now have one point I could put on the Quintavalla chart - a point about 9 yards lower at around 99 mph. Now all I need is a person who swings at at 90 mph and another at 110 mph and another who swings at 120 mph and I'd have a rough cut at what the old ball and modern driver distance/swing speed line would be. Sadly, I don't know where to find those two people. :'(
Good piece of work Bryan. Note the Balata spins close to 4000, whereas the ProV spins close to 3000 for you.
Gosh, Garland, that's some major league rounding you're doing to make your point. The delta between the spin rates is not 1000 rpm as you postulate, it's 707 rpm to be accurate.
Now if you go back to http://probablegolfinstruction.com/PGI%20Newsletter/news05-02-04.htm
you can see how the high swing speed player gains disproportionally more at their swing speeds over what you would gain.
If I understand you (not really sure I do) you are saying that going from a 4000 rpm ball to a 3000 rpm ball helps a 120 mph swinger more than it helps a 100 mph swinger. And by a disproportionate amount. If by disproportionate you mean 5 yards then I guess that's what the table says. Keep in mind that there wasn't a 1000 rpm difference, it was only 707. And, keep in mind that that the table is derived from an algorithm derived from a model that the blogger developed from a spreadsheet. Do you wonder what the margin of error might be in the algorithm or about the accuracy of the model. And, keep in mind that the spin rate is significantly dependent on the angle of attack and the dynamic loft at impact. Those are much larger factors than whether the ball was balata covered or not. Back a couple of decades I doubt that very many people had much of a clue about the angle of attack and dynamic loft and optimal launch conditions. I think the whole fitting process has had more impact than the cover of the ball. Certainly the solid core was an advance over windings too. Bottom line, there are many factors of which spin rate is one.
For your edification I've posted this Trackman chart of angles of attack and their impact on distance. Notice how radically different the spin rates are.
(http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee260/350dtm/TrackmanFittingChartTotalDistance.jpg)
-
Last time I checked, Pine Valley is not the longest course around. But I don't think they are having much trouble getting members...
Richard, PV is pretty long, in fact, I'd classify it as very long from the back tees, as it's a par 70.
The 500+ members are spread throughout the country so it's not like a local club where all of the members are a short drive away from playing.
Hence, I don't think you can use PV or ANGC as a typical example of a local club.
I've got a news for you. These private courses are having membership issues because the younger generation does not have the discretionary income to spend on initiation fees and monthly dues.
I agree with that, and I'd add another factor. In their quest to be all things to all people the cost of belonging to a private club has gone through the roof. To the degree that it's almost absurd
The problem is demographic. You can turn everyone of these struggling privates into 9000 yard behemoths and you will STILL have problems with memberships. Hell, the problem would be worse since it is now more expensive to join!
While that's true, the converse is also true, if they were shortened to 6,000 yards, you'd still have the same problem.
But, given the choice between two equal clubs, the golfer will almost always choose the more difficult/longer one.
It's like the "Red Badge of Courage" and an almost inate flaw in golfers.
If a course "cannot survive" without adding more tees, perhaps it would be best if that course closed its membership and become a daily fee course. There is nothing good that can come from people obsessing over who has a bigger dick when they are starving.
Except that people have been obsessing over bigger dicks for centuries.
And, "starving" is an extreme term. "Starving" people don't join clubs
Belonging to a private club is a luxury and if the prospective applicant can afford it, his choice in joining is probably going to factor in the quaiity and difficulty of the golf course.
-
Jeff,
You say golf is the only liesure time activity "expanding" its real estate...I'm assuming by real estate your equating that to cost, fair?
How much do Yankees or Cowboys games cost today in their new stadiums versus 10 years ago?
How much has ever actually been paid out in lawsuits from one golfer hitting another on an adjacent hole?
Let's use our heads folks...and not worry about telling a consultant they're wrong once in a while.
-
Jeff, with less spin on modern balls, the dispersion pattern is a lot smaller than what it was with balata, even when you are driving 20 yards further. People are not making courses longer because of that.
What I object to is being subjected to needless changes when those changes have nothing to do with 99.9% of the golfing public. They already made my old wedges illegal and it has made absolutely no difference to ANYONE, including the pros. How do we know the ball changes will be different?
Why should I care that someone wins US Open at 22 under instead of 4 under? If they care about par so much, why don't the just declare that par is 68 instead of 71? Why choose the most widely affecting changes for vanity sakes? Why would I care that some future Bubba can drive it 500 yards other than just admiring their abilities?
-
And, "starving" is an extreme term. "Starving" people don't join clubs
But starving clubs make rash decisions in hopes of attracting new members...you know as many as I do.
-
Richard,
You are the only person I know that thinks the USGA is interested in regulating the ball to protect par.
Also, what chapter and verse of the rules have made your wedges illegal?
-
Jim,
I no longer attend professional sports games for just that reason. ;)
I'm talking about more than cost, also time.
Re:corridors for safety, are you saying there should be none?
and if we are saying there should be an "acceptable" corridor, whatever we deem acceptable, should it not expand by the same % as golf balls go farther?
I've seen greens and tees ordered by local governments to be moved over safety corridors,and a driving range closed that was there first, so I think any business should take safety issues seriously, despite our mutual agreement on consultants ;D
Richard,
If future Bubba can drive it 500, that's great. Just less great if he did it because some geek spent months in a wind tunnel with an engineer tweaking equipment that soon have other wannabeBubbas hitting it 450 into my backyard, and having to wait when 300 out on a par 5.
I honestly don't care about "protecting par", and in fact I hate it when they SHORTEN a par 5 to lower par.
I do like seeing all skills tested, and irons with numbers on the bottom, not just letters ;D, should be part of that challenge.
Although Merion will be great test of long irons, off the tees ::) ::)
And Richard, I'm with you on the wedge changes being stupid, and guess what, the modern wedges now give just as much spin.
That's another reason I thnk going after anchoring is so stupid. They're spending needless credibility capital on a silly battle IMHO.
-
Thanks for calling my post/opinion bullshit. Greatly appreciated, and a good example of why I don't bother to spend much time on this site anymore.
What driver/shaft combo were you using in those scrambles back in the 80's and 90's? In the 80's, I was using persimmon (didn't even know the loft!) with a steel shaft, and then in the 90's I was using one version or another of the Big Bertha with a stock shaft or the Grafalloy Prolite in it. The Big Bertha was about 225 cc's I think.
I currently use a 460cc Ping K15 with a 56g Xcon5 shaft that I was fit to in an hour and a half session with one of Ping's best fitters in a PingNflight center using a Trackman. I know my launch angle, spin rate, smash factor, clubhead speed, ball speed, and both my carry and overall distances.
I was using what others were using, persimmon for a few years when I first started but eventually went to metal because I realized the lower lofted heads available helped keep my excessively high trajectory under a semblance of control. I used a tipped DG X100 43" in the 80s and switched to various graphite shafts in the 90s - never OEM, they were always way too soft. I played around with the shaft lengths between 43" and 44" - the cut length I ended up with mainly depended on the shaft weight so I could get the heavy swingweight I prefer.
In my bag right now is a clone of a Nike driver (the one with the yellow bottom from 2009 or so) I bought online for $120 including shaft, grip, assembly and shipping. It has a 44.25" shaft, the longest I've ever used is 44.75". The ones I've bought in the last few years (whether cheap clone or the expensive real thing) seem to suffer either a cracked head or broken shaft in a few months, so even though this clone Nike isn't a particular favorite of mine I keep having to go back to it!
I've never done a launch monitor so I have no idea what my launch angle, spin rate, smash factor, or clubhead/ball speed are. In fact, the only times I ever had my clubhead speed measured was when I was in college in the 80s, using some probably not very accurate device you clipped onto the bottom of your shaft, and about 10 years ago on one of those little swing computers for the home a friend had. Presumably if I do a launch monitor session did I could optimize myself to hit a bit further, which I probably should do since age and swing problems started eating into my distance around 2007 or so, but until I figure out what the heck has been going on with my swing the last few years it seems pointless to optimize for a faulty swing that can't seem to make decent contact even with short irons on any consistent basis any longer :)
I know what you're trying to say, the drivers are a factor also. That's true, but since I can't buy 1990 balls that aren't 23 years old to test on my modern driver, and a Pro V1 would obviously be handicapped launch angle wise if I tried to use my old 6.5* driver on it (I think it is still laying around somewhere) there isn't any way for me to separate the effect of ball versus effect of driver.
The argument for the drivers being the main cause of the distance gains kind of falls apart if you look at how far pros are hitting their irons now since irons are relatively unchanged since the 80s. I've been using the same set of irons with the same shafts since 1989, so I'm probably a pretty good control for any changes in iron technology someone wants to claim, and I never hit my irons further than I did in the early 2000s after switching to the Pro V1/V1x from the Professional. Further than I ever did when I'd play a rock back in the 80s, despite being on the wrong end of my 30s when the Pro V1 was introduced and not swinging as hard as I used to back in the day.
-
...
Roll back the ODS to 290 (or the number of your choice) yards for all balls. Then let the manufacturers figure out how to do it. You could try to regulate the slope and linearity of the distance/swing speed line, but it then gets way more complicated to design and build and to police. IMHO, this is a nightmare can of worms.
Not sure what you mean by this. If you mean rollback to the old ODS before they increased the distance specified by the ODS, then all balls will pass that test.
If you mean make all balls limit to 290 no matter what, then you are advocating exactly what the USGA decided they couldn't do when the new balls came out and created a problem. You would be obsoleting the vast majority of balls, and creating a great financial hardship for many ball manufacturers.
I meant that the easiest and simplest to regulate and police would be to keep the current test parameters and to reduce the ODS from 317 (+3) yards to 290 (+3) yards. Yes, it would make most current balls non-conforming, but then that would be true of any "roll-back". I didn't say the USGA would do it. I was just trying to counterpoint your (and others) attempt to "roll back" by selecting the characteristic of the ball (spin) that you want to change. Do you want to increase spin for what you think will be the distance impact or do you just want a shorter ball. The manufacturers are in the best position to figure out how to get to a lower ODS and spin may not be the answer.
-
Brent, Bryan,
Are either (or both) of you arguing that because a "roll-back" (and that's an unfortunate phrase, no one really wants a rollback, rather a new, reduced distance specification) would be complicated and difficult, the R&A and USGA shouldn't try?
No, I'm not saying that they shouldn't try because it's too complicated.
The original article is at best misleading, by the way. It's well known that both the R&A and USGA have been conducting tests on reduced distance balls for several years now, the balls produced by ball manufacturers and the results have been quite playable. Designing a new ball would be nowhere near as difficult as the article attempts to portray.
It depends on how many characteristics of the ball the R&A and the USGA try to regulate. Develpment of the ball will simpler if they just lower the ODS with the current test parameters and let the manufacturers figure it out.
-
That's terrific Greg. I look forward to the results. Do you have any 90 or 120 mph friends you could sucker in to this experiment?
Clearly with too much time on my hands I spent a while on a monitor today hitting a Pro V1, a (probably) 15 year old Titleist Tour Balata 100 and a (probably) 14 year old Titleist Professional 100. Now, I'd bet that the two old Titleists have lost a bit of their pop over the years, but it was worth a try. The monitor I was on was questionable on clubhead speed, but it was near what my speed is on more accurate monitors and the club speeds were pretty consistent. I don't have a robot-like swing so there is plenty of variation amongst the results within each ball, but I think the average results are indicative. I believe the ball speed and spin are reasonably accurate. The distances are, of course, dependent on the system's algorithm, but they are comparable to my results on other more accurate monitors.
(http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee260/350dtm/ModernandOldBallDistanceComparison.jpg)
Not surprisingly (given they are 15 years old) the old balls were about 9 yards shorter than the Pro V1. The ball speeds were about 3 mph slower. The Professional was surprisingly close in spin, while the Tour Balata was significantly higher. Despite the extra spin with the Tour Balata, the distances weren't any shorter than the Professional.
I now have one point I could put on the Quintavalla chart - a point about 9 yards lower at around 99 mph. Now all I need is a person who swings at at 90 mph and another at 110 mph and another who swings at 120 mph and I'd have a rough cut at what the old ball and modern driver distance/swing speed line would be. Sadly, I don't know where to find those two people. :'(
I swing pretty close to 110 (probably average 107) and have plenty of titleist balatas, professionals and prov1's. I'll hit some on a monitor in the next few days and provide the data to you.
-
Brent,
I believe the two of us are of a mind on this point.
Brent, Bryan,
Are either (or both) of you arguing that because a "roll-back" (and that's an unfortunate phrase, no one really wants a rollback, rather a new, reduced distance specification) would be complicated and difficult, the R&A and USGA shouldn't try?
The original article is at best misleading, by the way. It's well known that both the R&A and USGA have been conducting tests on reduced distance balls for several years now, the balls produced by ball manufacturers and the results have been quite playable. Designing a new ball would be nowhere near as difficult as the article attempts to portray.
Not at all. A reduction in the performance of the golf ball can either be done (legally, politically) or it can not. I am totally unqualified to judge that probability. All I'm saying is technically if it is going to be at all, it needs to be done in a straightforward manner because any attempt to out-clever the industry or the elite players will either be laughably ineffective or it will backfire with unintended consequences.
If the "problem" is defined as Today's Golf Ball Flies Too Far When Struck By Elite Players then the "solution" can only be to require that Golf Balls In Future Fly Less Far When Struck By Elite Players. There is no "exponential curve" and futzing around with spin or dimples without an outright distance restriction is sure to fail. Specify what you want to happen, don't specify unrelated parameters in the vain hope that it ought to somehow indirectly result in less distance.
-
............................................
All I know is this. If they want elite players NOT to be hitting the ball such-and-such distances in the year 2033 then they have to enforce a meaningful limit on ball speed AND carry distance as measured at the clubhead speeds likely to prevail at that time for the strongest players. If you don't want a 150mph swing to propel the ball at 220mph and see it travel 400 yards through the air then make a rule that say just how far a ball is allowed to travel when struck at 150mph.
IMO this is the most impractical rules suggestion I have ever seen on this matter.
What is impractical about it? Set the ODS at 290 yards at a swing speed of 150 mph. When (and if) anybody ever gets a swing above 150 mph then change the ODS parameters so that the max distance at that speed is still capped at 290 yards. And, btw the initial velocity regulation is kind of redundant. Who cares what the initial velocity is. All that really matters is the overall distance standard.
............................................
Now that spin has been manipulated to make balls go farther than intended given existing regulations, IMO it is time to regulate spin.
Arguably spin manipulation is caused more by the club and swing technique than by the properties of the ball. I don't care how you design a ball to cause it to spin, I can find a club and swing that will cause that ball to launch with optimal RPM's for whatever swing speed. The really good players will gravitate to those clubs and those swings and will negate whatever spin you think you've built into the ball.
-
...
Roll back the ODS to 290 (or the number of your choice) yards for all balls. Then let the manufacturers figure out how to do it. You could try to regulate the slope and linearity of the distance/swing speed line, but it then gets way more complicated to design and build and to police. IMHO, this is a nightmare can of worms.
Not sure what you mean by this. If you mean rollback to the old ODS before they increased the distance specified by the ODS, then all balls will pass that test.
If you mean make all balls limit to 290 no matter what, then you are advocating exactly what the USGA decided they couldn't do when the new balls came out and created a problem. You would be obsoleting the vast majority of balls, and creating a great financial hardship for many ball manufacturers.
I meant that the easiest and simplest to regulate and police would be to keep the current test parameters and to reduce the ODS from 317 (+3) yards to 290 (+3) yards. Yes, it would make most current balls non-conforming, but then that would be true of any "roll-back". I didn't say the USGA would do it. I was just trying to counterpoint your (and others) attempt to "roll back" by selecting the characteristic of the ball (spin) that you want to change. Do you want to increase spin for what you think will be the distance impact or do you just want a shorter ball. The manufacturers are in the best position to figure out how to get to a lower ODS and spin may not be the answer.
The USGA has already rejected rolling back the ODS and putting companies out of business. So it may be easy for the USGA, but not easy for the industry. The roll back by spin regulation would only make the high end (vast minority) balls non-conforming.
-
So in your estimation Titleist would be fine with the Pro V1 being ruled non-conforming as long as they could keep selling all those NXT's and DT Solo's?
-
What is impractical about it? Set the ODS at 290 yards at a swing speed of 150 mph. When (and if) anybody ever gets a swing above 150 mph then change the ODS parameters so that the max distance at that speed is still capped at 290 yards. And, btw the initial velocity regulation is kind of redundant. Who cares what the initial velocity is. All that really matters is the overall distance standard.
............................................
Now that spin has been manipulated to make balls go farther than intended given existing regulations, IMO it is time to regulate spin.
Arguably spin manipulation is caused more by the club and swing technique than by the properties of the ball. I don't care how you design a ball to cause it to spin, I can find a club and swing that will cause that ball to launch with optimal RPM's for whatever swing speed. The really good players will gravitate to those clubs and those swings and will negate whatever spin you think you've built into the ball.
Why do you think the old wood driver heads had such low loft? Why do you think it took a couple of years for the the players to take full advantage of the new ball?
Now consider how significantly reduced loft on the driver affects the play of the club. All the big names have been able to hit it over 300 yards when they wanted to from Bobby Jones, to Sam Snead, to Ben Hogan, to Arnold Palmer, to Jack Nicklaus. But, what was their average? Well short of that, because they knew they needed to keep the ball in play.
-
So in your estimation Titleist would be fine with the Pro V1 being ruled non-conforming as long as they could keep selling all those NXT's and DT Solo's?
You think Titleist wouldn't develop a Pro V2 that is the best ball they can make under whatever restraints the rollback would put on them? They'd still have most of the tour playing their ball, still have many better players and wanna-be better players buying them because they've always bought Titleist. The only scenario where Titleist is significantly hurt by a rollback is if the Pro V2 sucks compared to the best ball Srixon, Callaway, and Nike make so people who have a choice (i.e. everyone but pros under contract) switch from Titleist to something else.
It isn't as though the USGA would issue new rules for the rollback and have them start in three months from the date of the announcement, and all the OEMs would be caught flat footed unable to develop new balls in time.