Discuss ;D
Doesn't bother me.
Ciao
Jeff, you may be the early leader in the line of the year.Doesn't bother me.
Ciao
To be fair he needed to hit a 5 ;D ;D
It is a big deal. That's why he's engaged to Paulina Gretzky, and you're not. ;D
It is a big deal. That's why he's engaged to Paulina Gretzky, and you're not. ;D
She actually has a decent swing:
http://instagram.com/p/i9ssJ8Mj5J/
It is a big deal. That's why he's engaged to Paulina Gretzky, and you're not. ;D
She actually has a decent swing:
http://instagram.com/p/i9ssJ8Mj5J/
Dustin Johnson also hit 6 iron on the 100-yard 7th on Saturday. So we can say wind was a factor this weekend.
Discuss ;D[
Jeff,
Today's 3-woods are suped up clubs and should really be equated with drivers off the tee, hence while it's a terrific feat, with modern day PGA Tour Pro's, it doesn't come as a shock/color]
Discuss ;D
...But they fact they abdicated their duty and let the ball get tons longer really doesn't seem to have changed the game fundamentally....
...But they fact they abdicated their duty and let the ball get tons longer really doesn't seem to have changed the game fundamentally....
Depends on what the meaning of fundamentally is.
...But they fact they abdicated their duty and let the ball get tons longer really doesn't seem to have changed the game fundamentally....
Depends on what the meaning of fundamentally is.
If my wife walks into the TV room and watches Jack Nicklaus playing Tom Watson at Pebble Beach then I switch the channel to Dustin Johnson or somebody hitting 3-wood, 6-iron into the 18th hole she will notice not one thing in a world different about the game being played.
If you have to be familiar with the course and/or have to be told the distances of the shots and the clubs being used by an announcer, then nothing is fundamentally different.
You know, when 90% of golfers and nearly 100% of the golf "establishment" flip you the bird, so to speak, for banging on about how the game is being destroyed maybe you ought to consider that the end-of-the-world-as-we-know-it issue is merely a minority personal opinion.It's true, the majority doesn't care, but that they don't care doesn't mean those who do care should just watch the rot.
A great many people do not care AT ALL about what Dustin Johnson's club selection means to "the game". And there are a few others who actually think the distances strong players hit the ball nowadays is a great thing, a positive development.
In fact I suspect strongly that it would not have mattered. As friend Sean often repeats, people are gonna do what people are gonna do.What need is there to stretch courses to 7,500 yards if the average pro drive is 255 yards? If 450-yards is a drive and long iron? If 550-yards is a maybe reachable par-5?
How would you define it?
I think, if anything, Brent erred on the side of caution by using Tour players as his example. How would your regular group be fundamentally different than a foursome 30 years ago?
The game is fundamentally a game using balls and implements, on courses. If the interaction of balls, implements, and courses changes, the game fundamentally changes.
Brent's definition was weak, because it used casual observers over a remote medium.
The game is fundamentally a game using balls and implements, on courses. If the interaction of balls, implements, and courses changes, the game fundamentally changes.
Brent's definition was weak, because it used casual observers over a remote medium.
So your definition of "fundamentally" is something like "can be detected by a trained observed he looks closely enough".
What need is there to stretch courses to 7,500 yards if the average pro drive is 255 yards? If 450-yards is a drive and long iron? If 550-yards is a maybe reachable par-5?
Lost in the shuffle of Dustin Johnson's disaster at the PGA Championship at Whistling Straits is that his grounded-club bunker shot was hit with a 6 iron... from 240 yards.
He's a freak. Probably the best athlete in golf. Call me when Zach Johnson does the same thing, and we'll talk.
What need is there to stretch courses to 7,500 yards if the average pro drive is 255 yards? If 450-yards is a drive and long iron? If 550-yards is a maybe reachable par-5?
I think you severely underestimate the clubhead speed Dustin Johnson generates with a 6-iron compared to the clubhead speed Jack Nicklaus generated. There's more of a power differential between Johnson and Nicklaus than there was between Nicklaus and Hogan.
But I'm sure you're going to propose that the ball be rolled back not just to 90's era performance (pre-ProV1) or for that matter to 70's era performance but however far back is necessary to make Dustin Johnson's 6-iron go no further than Bobby Jones' 6-iron. Gotta see each year's US Open be a club-for-club yard-for-year repeat of US Opens from half a century ago. That's where these thread usually end up.
I think it's easy to say, what's the big deal, the ball's only going really far for a very small percentage of players (the world's best).
It's looking at the game from the perspective of the world's best players that's lead too many developers of golf courses to build big courses on big properties that, as a result, take a lot of money and a lot of time to play. I don't think this is a good equation.
Long hitting is relative too. If a long drive was 225 yards, 6,500 yards would be a really long course … and the longest driver would still be that, the longest driver. But we'd spend less on course construction and upkeep, and it might take 2 hours to play instead of 5.
I know golf's not going that far backwards any time soon, but that's my idealist perspective :)
I think it's easy to say, what's the big deal, the ball's only going really far for a very small percentage of players (the world's best).
Jeff,
I think increased distance extends far beyond the tour player.
High school kids are routinely bombing it further than Nicklaus did in his prime.
I know guys on Medicare who routinely hit it 280, unfortunately, I'm not one of them.
It's looking at the game from the perspective of the world's best players that's lead too many developers of golf courses to build big courses on big properties that, as a result, take a lot of money and a lot of time to play. I don't think this is a good equation.
I'd agree.
I also see local clubs lengthening their courses when their courses will never host a significant event.
At one course that I'm familiar with, they wanted to add length and I asked them, "for whom" ? as only one or two guys broke 80 qualifying for their club championship over the last 5-10 years.
Long hitting is relative too. If a long drive was 225 yards, 6,500 yards would be a really long course … and the longest driver would still be that, the longest driver. But we'd spend less on course construction and upkeep, and it might take 2 hours to play instead of 5.
I know golf's not going that far backwards any time soon, but that's my idealist perspective :)
I hear you, but, I've just about given up hope on a competition ball from any source.
My memory may be fading, but I seem to recall the general awe when Tiger was the first to reach 18 in two, with a 3-WOOD...that was 12-15 years ago, so YES I'd say anybody hitting 19 in two with 3W/6i is a big deal
Jason,
I don't think the USGA would ever endorse bifurcation, at least that's what I gleaned from a conversation with a former President that I played with last November.
I had always hoped that after the Ohio Golf Association experiment with a tournament ball, that ANGC would come out with one for The Masters, but, that hope is fading with each passing year.
Pat,
The real question is, how much is it worth to the entire clientele of a course to assure that the elite players are able to interface with the architecture.
Some courses are obviously able to afford it regardless.
Others have it in their DNA to allocate a disproportionate percentage of their resources to this effort.
The other 99% of courses need to consider the business they're in.
Jim,
I don't think money is an issue.
When a PGA Tour event comes to a course/club, I believe that the course/club does very well financially
As an experienced committee person at various levels of golf (club and organization), why should Mountain Ridge worry about a few high school kids hitting the ball 300+ yards?
Because it's symptomatic of the next generation of golfers.
As an experienced committee person at various levels of golf (club and organization), why should Mountain Ridge worry about a few high school kids hitting the ball 300+ yards?
Because it's symptomatic of the next generation of golfers.
I can only think of one time in the long history of the game that the Rules makers have caused the golf ball to fly LESS far. That was the standardization on the USGA large ball instead of the R&A small ball. Otherwise it's as Jeff just said, the ball will fly farther in the future and that has always been true.
Discuss ;D
I doubt it will be recognized as a problem until someone drives the green! Probably not even then.
Let's face it... the game is corrupted and the supposed defenders and protectors don't care too much. What has happened to golf is beyond perverted; now it's just Monty Python laughable.
I recall Geoff Shakelford in a round table during the Merion Open, and he brought up how the course was tricked up (due o the length of the ball)... if I recall correctly. David Fay basically flipped him the bird verbally.
And that's where golf is at the moment. It's been flipped the bird by the governing bodies that could do something.
So from a business operation standpoint, let's say 5% of a club finds the course too short to challenge them, but the other 95% love the course and the roster is full. Does a club invest more than the 5% pay in to keep them happy, or let them migrate to Modern Challenge CC down the way?
Joe,
Each club has it's own distinct culture, so what may work or be good for one club isn't necessarily good for another.
But, if you want a golf course to present an ATTRACTIVE, meaningful and enjoyable challenge you can't retain the status quo when the status quo is a 6,100 yard golf course and your user finds the architectural features nothing more than window dressing.
Despite what those on GCA.com may think, it's the end user whose opinion counts.
And, if you have several courses in the area and one is regarded as a pushover or too easy, it will not fare well when compared to the others, unless it offers something really unique.
I don't think you can ignore the modern golfer as he's your newest prospective member
Pat and Jeff,
Play it out for me.
You're on the committee and you have Jeff Mingay in consulting.
How do you justify proposing a set of course alterations for the fraction of players concerned?
Jim,
That's what you're missing, it's no longer a fraction, it's the rising tide.
Money is always an issue!
It's the key issue the roll back people lean on.
Architectural integrity and equity are not.
It's one of the issues and money and architectural integrity are intertwined
I can only think of one time in the long history of the game that the Rules makers have caused the golf ball to fly LESS far. That was the standardization on the USGA large ball instead of the R&A small ball. Otherwise it's as Jeff just said, the ball will fly farther in the future and that has always been true.
Off the top of my head I believe that there was a lighter "balloon ball" at one point back in the thirties or so. If memory serves me right, it was deemed too difficult to control and they went back to a heavier and therefore longer ball. This was also the time when the USGA and R&A diverged on their ball standards. Hopefully, someone with better knowledge of this will chime in.
Jim,
At one time a company came out with a "floater", a ball that would float if hit into the water.
Obviously it was lighter.
I had the opportunity to hit a few of them many years ago, and on a short par 3, with water, they seemed OK, but, distance wise, they weren't as long.
Can anyone here name a single player from the 1960s, 70s, 80s, or 90s that was in the physical condition Dustin Johnson is in now?
WW
Can anyone here name a single player from the 1960s, 70s, 80s, or 90s that was in the physical condition Dustin Johnson is in now?
WW
I'd say DJ would benefit from a rollback. i.e. he would be the ONLY player reaching 18, rather than simply having a shorter club.
So how many guys on Tour generated more clubhead speed than Jack in 1970? Maybe a dozen?
How many guys on Tour today generate more clubhead speed than Jack did in 1970? If not all of them, then at least a couple hundred. Zach Johnson probably creates as much clubhead speed as Jack did in his prime. Not as good an athlete but better technique, better training, better nutrition and just generally a couple generations of progress (and by "better" in this context I mean "better able to create clubhead speed").a
So how many guys on Tour generated more clubhead speed than Jack in 1970? Maybe a dozen?
How many guys on Tour today generate more clubhead speed than Jack did in 1970? If not all of them, then at least a couple hundred. Zach Johnson probably creates as much clubhead speed as Jack did in his prime. Not as good an athlete but better technique, better training, better nutrition and just generally a couple generations of progress (and by "better" in this context I mean "better able to create clubhead speed").a
So how many guys on Tour generated more clubhead speed than Jack in 1970? Maybe a dozen?
How many guys on Tour today generate more clubhead speed than Jack did in 1970? If not all of them, then at least a couple hundred. Zach Johnson probably creates as much clubhead speed as Jack did in his prime. Not as good an athlete but better technique, better training, better nutrition and just generally a couple generations of progress (and by "better" in this context I mean "better able to create clubhead speed").a
Seriously.
There's a fine line between being pragmatic about dealing with modern equipment and just being a hater.
If you want to complain about how far the ball goes, you shouldn't make Exhibit A the best all-around athlete in the history of the Tour. Personally, I'd find it pathetic if the ruling bodies tried to ensure diminishing returns for guys who work their tails off in the gym and have 1 in a million genetics.
If Paul Goydos reaches 18 with a mid iron, then we have an equipment problem. If Dustin Johnson does it, we just have an athlete on our hands. You can't draw systemic conclusions by looking at outliers.
... USGA could have prevented that from happening with the stroke a pen but they declined to do so for their own reasons that we can only speculate about.
The USGA has stated that they declined to do so, because they would bankrupt certain ball companies by doing so. That is why they held off. Whether it was a good choice is something to speculate.
But the 2013 ProV1 is not particularly longer than a ProV1 from the mid-2000's. And they've been using 460cc drivers with the same COR and the same lightweight shafts for the past decade-plus, as well.
This is not true. The shaft companies continue to create lighter and lighter shafts, allowing longer and longer clubs to be built.
How long will you keep pointing out that one Balata to urethane switchover as somehow grounds for denying the plain truth that golfers keep generating more clubhead speed and applying it more efficiently with each year that passes?
Perhaps he does it because the USGA itself has reported it caused a 25 yard increase in distance.
And the Tour ain't going back to a lumpy Maxfli HT Balata no matter how many Grandpa Simpsons complain about it.
There is no need to do so. The technology exists to rein in the ball, and the USGA has asked for an received example balls from the manufacturers.
But the 2013 ProV1 is not particularly longer than a ProV1 from the mid-2000's. And they've been using 460cc drivers with the same COR and the same lightweight shafts for the past decade-plus, as well.
How long will you keep pointing out that one Balata to urethane switchover as somehow grounds for denying the plain truth that golfers keep generating more clubhead speed and applying it more efficiently with each year that passes?
Tell me about this rising tide of players making Mountain Ridge obsolete.
It's been happening for years, that's why MRCC has added length.
On the busiest day of the year, how many people play the golf course and feel it didn't offer them an interesting challenge because they hit the ball too far and too straight and shoot too low of a score?
I've found MRCC to be a very difficult golf course.
It's long, 7,100+ yards at par 71 with a predominant prevailing wind from the west/southwest.
The green complexes are very difficult and the greens are maintained in the neighborhood of 11.
The younger guys I play with, hit the ball very long. And, I suspect that the younger generation of long ball hitters finds the course far mor benign than I do.
The 2014 MGA Mid Amateur will be held at MRCC this year.
We'll see how the course holds up to a younger generation
Don't the NCAA driving stats indicate that the next generation of golfers drive the ball farther than the PGA Tour Pros ?
Sean,
The extension of Jeff's query is: how do you challenge that player from an architectural perspective ?
How do you get him to interface with the architecture which has become equivalent to the Maginot Line?
Pat, you're probably right. But comparing driving stats does not prove the case. Sometimes the college guys play in the U.S. Open and PGA tour events. Do they hit their drives 20-30 yards further there than PGA tour pros do?
Jim,
It depends upon the individual game of the college guy.
You can't deny the facts presented in the NCAA driving stats vs the PGA Tour driving stats.
Sean,
The extension of Jeff's query is: how do you challenge that player from an architectural perspective ?
How do you get him to interface with the architecture which has become equivalent to the Maginot Line?
Pat
I think a loft range of 15 to 50 and 8 clubs in the bag does just what you ordered. On a wider level, it really isn't up to anybody else except for the pro tours themselves to figure out how to make their players interface with architecture - if indeed it is of any importance to pro players.
It seems as if only the USGA is concerned with that, but there's only so much you can do when technology has leap frogged the architecture.
As always, I say the problem lies with consumers buying the pro product and the equipment. If folks stopped doing both, things would change.
You're kidding, right ?
You want consumers to buy balls and equipment that go shorter distances ? ? ?
Never going to happen.
The quest for more distance is inherent in the game
Frankly, if what is passed off as pro golf these days upsets so many people why do they watch?
Your premise is flawed.
Who said that watching PGA Tour golf upsets people ?
"Alarms" might be a better choice of words
I suspect most that do watch like what they see and the ball rollbackers are in the extreme minority.
I don't disagree, although I think the "roll backers" have a greater sense of "protecting and preserving" the values of he game and the architecture.
In any case, you are never going to convince me that manufacturers will not continuously find ways to improve equipment regardless of USGA specs.
Agreed
I never believed a roll back would occur to a time when most rollbackers want (and I still don't).
Don't know if anyone has "fixed" the date.
I'd be content with 1980 or earlier.
Its pie in the sky stuff so why not look for a different solution such as I suggest - which is essentially bifurcation.
"Bifurcation" isn't going to happen.
The USGA is dead set against it
It's "pie in the sky" as you say
Only my idea is to let hackers keep their toys and focus on where the "problem" lies.
The problem is systemic and your idea to let the hackers do whatever they like would undermine the fabric of the game.
It's beyond moronic, it's destructive.
The biggest issue with my approach is the USGA doesn't really control where the biggest problem lies. It likes to think it does, but in reality the pro tours can split their own way anytime they like if the USGA gets too stupid with their ideas of rollbacks.
Then you don't understand the relationship between the USGA and the PGA Tour
Bottom line, I don't think anything like a majority of pros want to see a rollback to 1990 or whatever.
Of course they don't.
Since when are the views of the PGA Tour players anything but self serving ?
Frank Hannigan told me a long time ago, the PGA Tour players are the last people you want to listen to.
I could see a slight rollback, but so what if that happens. I reckon to stop smash mouth golf the rollback needs to be huge. Something like at least 10% if not closer to 20% and the courses remain the same length as today. I can't see that ever happening so long as people are buying the pro product and all the new clubs.
20% is not going to happen, at least not in one quantum leap.
Like many aspects of life, a "phase in" over time, sort of like Obamacare :D would be the better way to go.
The Ohio Golf Association used a tournament ball for a year or so, but nothing seemed to come of it.
I always thought that the powers that be at ANGC would see the light and introduce a tournament ball for the Masters rather than buy all the adjacent property within a mile radius in order to lengthen the course to meet the leaps in distance, but that hope fades with each passing year
Ciao
And there will be kids in 2033 driving the ball farther than college kids did in 2013.
Completely agree
Unless there is some massive "rollback" in the equipment that I personally do not believe will ever happen.
If it doesn't, the game will become a lark and no longer a challenging endeavor.
400 yard drives aren't in the best interest of the game or established architecture
Again, Pat, you're dealing with a minuscule fraction of players.
Jim,
I disagree, the exception is becoming the rule for all of those who take up the game at an early age.
Last year, a Junior who plays on my son's golf team was routinely driving the ball 300, and, he's not a big kid.
And, so were others on the team, but not routinely
The result of their length is the issues up for debate, and how best to deal with it. I
hear two or three different ideas on how the infrastructure of golf should react to it;
- Don't do a thing and let each generation hit the ball further and in theory score better.
Make major financial investments in golf courses to defend against this age of players.
Have the USGA/R&A control and roll back equipment to return a certain level of skill to the game.
Each one of these options has hair on it, but the best business decision to me is #1 for a whole host of reasons.
I strongly disagree.
Laissez Faire applied to golf will ruin the game
Pat Mucci:
"If it doesn't, the game will become a lark and no longer a challenging endeavor."
See it's that last part that you guys keep repeating as though it were actually true. Where are you seeing this happen?
At every golf club I've played in the last 30 or so years.
Everyone of them has lengthened their course.
And they did so to preserve the challenge lest their course become a pushover and unappealing
I watch Dustin Johnson playing on TV and that dude seems to be working his ass off. And he's shooting scores not all that much different than Jack Nicklaus would have back in the day.
That's irrelevant
How it moving a ball 550 yards with two swings and having it end up 10 feet from the hole going to be "a lark". When do you think these great easing of the game will take place?
It started years ago, you just haven't been paying attention
The best players in the world with every advantage modern equipment can possibly give them are only able to eagle the 18th at Pebble Beach one time in twenty. Hell, they can't even birdie it sometimes.
Wrong.
How many times were they "eagling" that hole in 20 attempts in 1960 ? 1970 ? 1980 ? 1990, 2000 ?
Do you not see the trend ?
If it were so easy, surely an elite PGA Tour field would be making more threes than than fours and fives combined, right?
Wrong again.
The crescent shape of the hole, combined with OB right and a water hazard left influence play.
If neither existed, but were adjacent fairways instead, you'd see 1 in 10 eagle attempts
It may be easier to eagle a 550-yard hole with a 3-wood/6-iron than with Driver/2-iron. But that's like saying it's easier to make a billion dollars if you start with ten million than if you start with one million. It's damned difficult either way and I just can't see it getting to be "a lark" any time in the next 50 years.
Then you don't understand the forces in play and the objectives of the manufacturers.
Surely you don't expect or rely on them to protect the integrity of the game and the architecture, do you ?
Just speculating, but one day will there come a point where lack of water or the cost of water or land availability is such that making 18-hole courses longer and longer will no longer be practical/affordable and thus course lengths will self restrict themselves?
Agree
I recall when water shortages resulted in restrictions where only tees and greens could be watered.
Cost and availability of water, intertwined with politics don't bode well for golf
Just another log on the discussion fire!
atb
Water restrictions might ultimately help those whose preference is for fairways etc to be nice 'n' brown and very much firm and fast! :) In agreement with the point about politics.Just speculating, but one day will there come a point where lack of water or the cost of water or land availability is such that making 18-hole courses longer and longer will no longer be practical/affordable and thus course lengths will self restrict themselves?
Agree
I recall when water shortages resulted in restrictions where only tees and greens could be watered.
Cost and availability of water, intertwined with politics don't bode well for golf
Pat,
About a decade ago a prominent golfer announced that "fitting" would be the next advancement in golf.
Your posts above are proof of that.
What Brent and others don't seem to grasp is that the technology to increase distance by significant amounts already exists.
Paul Goydos's 22 yard leap in three years is also proof positive, as are your increases.
Last week I played with David Eger, Jay Sigel and Billy Ziobro.
They're all longer at 62, 70 and 65 than when I played with them 30 and 45 years ago.
They're LONG and they didn't get longer because they got younger, stronger and in better condition.
Billy in particular shocked me because he was never really long, but he's long now.
"Fitting" has now trickled down to the amateur ranks.
Golfers are buying equipment that maximizes their personal swing traits.
High school kids are hitting it farther than Nicklaus in his prime, yet, there are those in denial regarding the increase in distance and it's impact in courses, architecture and costs.
And, golfers are going to continue getting longer
High school kids are hitting it farther than Nicklaus in his prime, yet, there are those in denial regarding the increase in distance and it's impact in courses, architecture and costs.
If there was less variance of distance between players I think skill is more rewarded. JMO
It's funny, but the longest hitters probably are hurt the most by the distance explosion.
Watching Tiger dominate Augusta in '97, I remember Nicklaus and palmer predicting 10 wins for him at ANGC.
But as EVERYBODY has gotten longer, he and other bombers no longer has an edge that's all that great because they often have to hit irons or fairway woods to fit into the target area.
As Brent says, covering 550 yards in two shots is still an impressive feat, and not easy, but now that the entire tour can do it, it's not much of an edge for longer hitters, and no matter how much they lengthen courses, they don't play as long as they did 30 years ago, but the corridors are the same or in many misguided cases, NARROWER.
Jeff,
This is where you, Brent and others go wrong.
The distance issue isn't about the advantages of one player over another, it's about making the architecture, meant to integrate with the golfer, obsolete
Nobody's saying the game is too easy with hot clubs, just that it's a different game-with a lot of needless time hunting balls due to the balls going farther (including offline )and misguided attempts by courses to counter that.
As to balls going further off line, that's pure nonsense.
Between the modern ball and modern equipment the ball goes straighter
Such is life I guess.
It's ironic that the gap between great golfers and bad golfers has never been greater, and the distance gaps never greater, but yet it's the shorter hitters and worst players that are against a rollback the most.
Not sure I agree with your conclusion.
I think part of the problem is that the "rollback" has been expressed or communicated in fixed arithmetic terms rather than in exponential or proportionate terms.
Ie. a golfer who hits a ball 200 will NOT have the equivalent "rollback" experienced by those hitting it 300 yards
Which I find somewhat humorous ;D ;D but to each his own
What need is there to stretch courses to 7,500 yards if the average pro drive is 255 yards? If 450-yards is a drive and long iron? If 550-yards is a maybe reachable par-5?
I think you severely underestimate the clubhead speed Dustin Johnson generates with a 6-iron compared to the clubhead speed Jack Nicklaus generated. There's more of a power differential between Johnson and Nicklaus than there was between Nicklaus and Hogan.
But I'm sure you're going to propose that the ball be rolled back not just to 90's era performance (pre-ProV1) or for that matter to 70's era performance but however far back is necessary to make Dustin Johnson's 6-iron go no further than Bobby Jones' 6-iron. Gotta see each year's US Open be a club-for-club yard-for-year repeat of US Opens from half a century ago. That's where these thread usually end up.
Brent I think it would be better to limit distance, as I watch normal golfers on my course everyday distance does not really help golfers to score.It does allow them to hit it deeper in the woods though.If we keep this up courses are going to need to be longer and wider.I have seen 30 Hcp that can produce similar speeds as Dustin.
Can anyone discuss, even in layman's terms, the specs that they'd like to see on a "rollback" ball?
What benefits the long guy is his clubhead speed and ability to hit the ball squarely. You're wanting a ball that prevents his clubhead speed and good contact from benefiting him. That's as bloody-minded as it is laughable.
Because that's what this complaint comes down to. You don't want someone who swings better than hits it solidly to gain the advantage of that ability.
Used to be the biggest hitters on the PGA Tour were content with playing a ball that didn't work worth shit for players of their ability. One day they woke up and started using a ball that did not cost them most of the advantage of their power and technique. Overnight the slightly-longer hitters were much longer because they quit tying one hand behind their back with silly balata and rubber-band balls.
You guys have been sputtering in outrage ever since. Why how DARE some guy who hits the ball 20% harder actually see his ball fly 20% farther. That's just not right!
What benefits the long guy is his clubhead speed and ability to hit the ball squarely. You're wanting a ball that prevents his clubhead speed and good contact from benefiting him. That's as bloody-minded as it is laughable.
Not really
Because that's what this complaint comes down to. You don't want someone who swings better than hits it solidly to gain the advantage of that ability.
What you're not seeing is that the manufacturers designed a ball that disadvantages the low swing speed hitter while benefiting the high speed swing hitter. Is that what you want ? To allow the best players to play better while the average to poor player sees little improvement ?
Used to be the biggest hitters on the PGA Tour were content with playing a ball that didn't work worth shit for players of their ability.
Now you've exposed yourself as one who doesn't know what he's talking about.
The manufacturers always catered to the best players in the world
One day they woke up and started using a ball that did not cost them most of the advantage of their power and technique.
That's not what happened.
The manufacturers deliberatgely developed balls that would go farther for those with higher swing speeds.
In addition, spin rates were lowered, making the ball fly straighter.
The manufacturers catered to a select sub-group and with hi tech equipment and balls provided them with an advantage not offered to the mediocre or poor golfer
Overnight the slightly-longer hitters were much longer because they quit tying one hand behind their back with silly balata and rubber-band balls.
Brent, please, you're detracting from the total sum of human knowledge about the game with your statements
You guys have been sputtering in outrage ever since. Why how DARE some guy who hits the ball 20% harder actually see his ball fly 20% farther. That's just not right!
NO, it's not, because the guy who swung at 70 mph, who now swings at 90 mph, a 28.6 % increase is not getting the same distance benefit as a guy who swung at 100 mph who now swings at 120 mph, a 20 % increase, because the ball was speciifcally designed to only or disproportionaly benefit the 120 mph hitter.
Tell me that you understand that
Agreed
Next they will be calling for Usain Bolt to have to run 110 metres against everyone else only running 100.
Why should golf be the only sport seeking to nullify the advantage gained by proper technique, dedicated training and genuine athleticism? The same technology is essentially available to all golfers so surely the playing field is benefitting evenly in terms of all golfers stand to gain the same percentage distance increase/decrease?
Because the ball has also been designed to spin less, ergo, higher swing speed won't result in disproportionally greater dispursion patterns.
In fact, I believe that an experiment with a particular ball showed that the harder (mph) it was hit, the less it spun..
I think a better athlete should have an advantage, but, not a stacked deck.
Agreed
Next they will be calling for Usain Bolt to have to run 110 metres against everyone else only running 100.
Why should golf be the only sport seeking to nullify the advantage gained by proper technique, dedicated training and genuine athleticism? The same technology is essentially available to all golfers so surely the playing field is benefitting evenly in terms of all golfers stand to gain the same percentage distance increase/decrease?
Because the ball has also been designed to spin less, ergo, higher swing speed won't result in disproportionally greater dispursion patterns.
In fact, I believe that an experiment with a particular ball showed that the harder (mph) it was hit, the less it spun..
I think a better athlete should have an advantage, but, not a stacked deck.
Why should golf be the only sport seeking to nullify the advantage gained by proper technique, dedicated training and genuine athleticism?I had to read your post a few times to determine if you were joking when you wrote this. Still not sure, but I'll assume you are being serious. Do you think perhaps technological advances might have played a role in "the advantage gained?"
The same technology is essentially available to all golfers so surely the playing field is benefitting evenly in terms of all golfers stand to gain the same percentage distance increase/decrease?
Agreed
Next they will be calling for Usain Bolt to have to run 110 metres against everyone else only running 100.
Why should golf be the only sport seeking to nullify the advantage gained by proper technique, dedicated training and genuine athleticism? The same technology is essentially available to all golfers so surely the playing field is benefitting evenly in terms of all golfers stand to gain the same percentage distance increase/decrease?
Because the ball has also been designed to spin less, ergo, higher swing speed won't result in disproportionally greater dispursion patterns.
In fact, I believe that an experiment with a particular ball showed that the harder (mph) it was hit, the less it spun..
I think a better athlete should have an advantage, but, not a stacked deck.
Can you cite this experiment? That would be really interesting to me. On the surface, it violates every law of physics with which I'm familiar.
Are you talking about the time it takes to cook homemade grits or instant grits ? ;D
Your last two posts allude to higher swing speed players gaining a bigger advantage over lower swing speed players. Are you talking about Dustin Johnson receiving a bigger advantage than Justin Leonard? Or are you talking about Tour pros in general receiving a bigger advantage than 20 handicappers? Or both?
Neither, I'm talking about swing speeds in MPH
Why should golf be the only sport seeking to nullify the advantage gained by proper technique, dedicated training and genuine athleticism?I had to read your post a few times to determine if you were joking when you wrote this. Still not sure, but I'll assume you are being serious. Do you think perhaps technological advances might have played a role in "the advantage gained?"QuoteThe same technology is essentially available to all golfers so surely the playing field is benefitting evenly in terms of all golfers stand to gain the same percentage distance increase/decrease?
No, all golfers didn't stand to gain the same percentage distance increase/decrease.
_________________________________________
Contrary to what Brent loves to claim. I really don't care how long professionals hit the ball. What I do care about is golf architecture, and quality golf course architecture is being threatened by two things: 1) How far big hitters hit it. 2) How much farther big hitters hit it than average golfers. We no longer fit on the same golf courses.
The manufacturers deliberatgely developed balls that would go farther for those with higher swing speeds.
In addition, spin rates were lowered, making the ball fly straighter.
The manufacturers catered to a select sub-group and with hi tech equipment and balls provided them with an advantage not offered to the mediocre or poor golfer
Jim, No ball would do that. But getting rid of the balls that make the long guy much longer without benefitting the short guy would be a step in the right direction.
Does the ProV1x benefit golfers with moderate swing speeds? Would getting rid of it hurt anyone other than the longest hitters with the fastest swing speeds? And if these guys had to hit the ProV1 (oh the horror) wouldn't they still be substantially longer than everyone else?
Jim,
I think your latest choice is based on what I consider to be a false assumption. You wrote, "Roll back the ball/equipment to make sure those one or two do are not able to shoot those scores while making the game less enjoyable for the other 150 . . . "
I do not accept the premise that the game would be made less enjoyable for the other 150. This seems to be almost everyone's assumption, but it just isn't the case. The ball could easily be regulated in such a matter that the masses were not adversely impacted in the least. (Hell, if they wanted to, the USGA could even incentivize the manufacturers to make the game easier for the masses, without making it easier for the pros.)
Let me give you one simple real world example to hopefully help explain. The ProV1x. If the USGA banned balls with the distance characteristics of the ProV1x how would that impact the average golfer? The answer is that it wouldn't. The average golfer gets no relative benefit from balls like the ProV1x. Most just don't swing fast enough. Many pros don't even get a benefit from balls like the ProV1x, because not even they have enough swing speed! Eliminating such balls would have no negative impact on the vast majority of golfers, but it would chip away at the growing gap between the longest hitters and the shortest hitters.
This is just an example, but hopefully you get the picture.
If there was less variance of distance between players I think skill is more rewarded. JMO
Right now Dustin Johnson can apply several times the effective power into his golf swing as I can. The result is he hits the ball with about 1.5 times the clubhead speed that I produce. And the result is the ball traveling about 1.5 times farther than mine does.
You're proposing that the game would be better if a much stronger player producing 1.5 times my clubhead speed somehow could be rendered unable to hit the ball more than, what, 1.2 times my distance? 1.3 times?
How is that a better game? If you really want to equalize things, make him play a lumpy golf ball that renders him no more like to make a 20-foot putt than I am. Wouldn't that really be a better game?
Brent I think it would be better to limit distance, as I watch normal golfers on my course everyday distance does not really help golfers to score.It does allow them to hit it deeper in the woods though.If we keep this up courses are going to need to be longer and wider.I have seen 30 Hcp that can produce similar speeds as Dustin.
None of this is true.
Step away from the keyboard son. You don't know what you are saying. Of course what Lyndell is writing is true. It apparently just does not coincide with your close minded miniature imagination.
Can anyone discuss, even in layman's terms, the specs that they'd like to see on a "rollback" ball?
Plot the graph of spin vs. loft for a solid ball. Make a reasonable variation from that slope be the regulation on spin. I.e., if you want high spin off the wedge, you will have to accept high spin off the driver. If you want low spin off the driver, you have to accept low spin off the wedge (this is the ball the 30 handicappers Lyndell mentioned need to keep their ball on the golf course). The manufacturers could produces balls with different characteristics, and the players could choose the ball they felt fit their game the best.
...
Used to be the biggest hitters on the PGA Tour were content with playing a ball that didn't work worth shit for players of their ability. One day they woke up and started using a ball that did not cost them most of the advantage of their power and technique. Overnight the slightly-longer hitters were much longer because they quit tying one hand behind their back with silly balata and rubber-band balls.
...
...
Why should golf be the only sport seeking to nullify the advantage gained by proper technique, dedicated training and genuine athleticism? The same technology is essentially available to all golfers so surely the playing field is benefitting evenly in terms of all golfers stand to gain the same percentage distance increase/decrease?
... it violates every law of physics with which I'm familiar.
...
Brent I think it would be better to limit distance, as I watch normal golfers on my course everyday distance does not really help golfers to score.It does allow them to hit it deeper in the woods though.If we keep this up courses are going to need to be longer and wider.I have seen 30 Hcp that can produce similar speeds as Dustin.
None of this is true.
Step away from the keyboard son. You don't know what you are saying. Of course what Lyndell is writing is true. It apparently just does not coincide with your close minded miniature imagination.
Jesus, we're all just posting the same old boilerplate from the last 15 times this topic has been discussed.
I'm taking the pledge. Not a word from me on this topic again. Never, ever.
... 30 handicappers don't swing the club 130 mph. ...
Setting aside your made up numbers, you seem to be looking for some sort of equity between swing speed and distance achieved. I don't think that this currently exists in reality. I think that, if each group is using the most efficient ball for their swing speed, then a incremental increase in swing speed the low end is actually worth less distance gained than the same incremental increase at the high end of the swing speed spectrum.
What you're not seeing is that the manufacturers designed a ball that disadvantages the low swing speed hitter while benefiting the high speed swing hitter.
.......................
The manufacturers deliberatgely (sic) developed balls that would go farther for those with higher swing speeds.
.................................
NO, it's not, because the guy who swung at 70 mph, who now swings at 90 mph, a 28.6 % increase is not getting the same distance benefit as a guy who swung at 100 mph who now swings at 120 mph, a 20 % increase, because the ball was speciifcally designed to only or disproportionaly (sic) benefit the 120 mph hitter.
One opinion often accepted as conventional wisdom is that modern golf balls used on the PGA Tour give an unfair distance advantage to players with very high swing speeds. The thinking is that golfers with very fast swing speeds (for example, 115-plus mph) have gained a disproportionate amount of distance because modern golf balls only get "activated" when they're compressed at very high swing speeds. Another belief is that ball aerodynamics also result in disproportionately greater distance increases for those with very fast swing speeds.
What the Science Says:
In short, there is no extra distance "bonus" for high swing speeds. This is true for balls used on the PGA Tour, and all others as well. In fact, distance does not even increase in a straight line (see Figure 1): there are diminishing returns at higher swing speeds – just the opposite of the popular misconception. To be sure, hitting the ball faster means it goes farther; it's just that you don't get quite as much bang for the buck at the highest speeds.
Moreover, when a ball compresses more, it actually becomes less efficient. To show this, the USGA tested the “coefficient of restitution” or COR (which measures how efficiently impact energy gets turned into ball speed) at speeds from 90 mph (typical for a male amateur golfer) to well over 120 mph (the fastest PGA Tour player swing speed averages less than 125).
The result is that the COR for golf balls goes down as clubhead speed goes up (see Figure 3). 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.
After the ball leaves the clubface, the combination of speed and trajectory angle, along with two aerodynamic forces – "lift" (which keeps the ball in the air) and "drag" (which slows the ball down) determine how far the ball will go.
The USGA has tested the aerodynamic properties of several thousand golf balls, including all models currently used on the PGA Tour, and balls with speeds of more than 195 mph. As scientists predict, both of these aerodynamic forces on the golf ball rise significantly with ball speed. Positive lift force, which makes the ball fly, increases with ball speed, though there is a limit to how much is helpful; too much makes the ball balloon. Unfortunately, drag force also increases dramatically with ball speed; drag is the enemy of ball distance, especially for golfers with fast swings.
All together, this explains the diminishing returns with additional club speed seen in Figure 3.
In fact, I believe that an experiment with a particular ball showed that the harder (mph) it was hit, the less it spun..
... USGA could have prevented that from happening with the stroke a pen but they declined to do so for their own reasons that we can only speculate about.
The USGA has stated that they declined to do so, because they would bankrupt certain ball companies by doing so. That is why they held off. Whether it was a good choice is something to speculate.
Besides, do you really want golf to be like basketball, where only the physical freaks excel?
David,
Is your question/theory; we could take two golfers, an average player with 90mph swing speed and an elite player with say 120 mph swing speed, both hitting Titleist Balata's and comparing to ProV1's, the average player would not gain as much distance advantage as the elite player?
Just trying to clarify.
Patrick,QuoteIn fact, I believe that an experiment with a particular ball showed that the harder (mph) it was hit, the less it spun..
Wrong. See the Quintavalla study. It's the other way around.
That's not the study I was refering to
As you so frequently say...provide the evidence. Many of us are curious to read about it.
Jim,
My recollection was from a conversation that I had with the Chairman of the OGA Ball Committee last November.
I'm hoping to see him in March or April and will inquire further.
Is your question/theory; we could take two golfers, an average player with 90mph swing speed and an elite player with say 120 mph swing speed, both hitting Titleist Balata's and comparing to ProV1's, the average player would not gain as much distance advantage as the elite player?
Your test would be better than mine? Great. Go ahead and conduct your test and let us know how it goes.
In the interim, am still hoping you will answer the question you asked me:QuoteIs your question/theory; we could take two golfers, an average player with 90mph swing speed and an elite player with say 120 mph swing speed, both hitting Titleist Balata's and comparing to ProV1's, the average player would not gain as much distance advantage as the elite player?
So how about it? Do you think the average golfer gained as many yards by switching from the Balata to the ProV1 as the elite player? How about if each had switched to the ProV1x? And how about if the "average" golfer was closer to 80 mph than 90 mph?
David
I dont think the average player used balata. They tended to use surlyn covered balls which provided them distance and importantly durability. Better players sacrificed that distance on offer because feel and spin where key to their games.
Can you show me hard proof that specific PGA Tour pros hit the ProV1X further than the ProV1?
Your test would be better than mine? Great. Go ahead and conduct your test and let us know how it goes.
In the interim, am still hoping you will answer the question you asked me:QuoteIs your question/theory; we could take two golfers, an average player with 90mph swing speed and an elite player with say 120 mph swing speed, both hitting Titleist Balata's and comparing to ProV1's, the average player would not gain as much distance advantage as the elite player?
So how about it? Do you think the average golfer gained as many yards by switching from the Balata to the ProV1 as the elite player? How about if each had switched to the ProV1x? And how about if the "average" golfer was closer to 80 mph than 90 mph?
David
I dont think the average player used balata. They tended to use surlyn covered balls which provided them distance and importantly durability. Better players sacrificed that distance on offer because feel and spin where key to their games.
Garland,
I assume you're speaking to Grant, but you [quoted] parts of my dialogue with David...who were you addressing?
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/Misc/gain-in-2003.jpg)
As I said before, I think you'll find the decision between using the ProV1 and the ProV1x revolves more around spin that speed.
...
I think everyone would agree it is impossible to roll back optimization, so that leaves the ball and the driver. Between the two, which benefits the average player more, the ball of today versus the ball of 20 years ago, or the driver of today versus the driver of 20 years ago? I think nearly everyone would agree the driver benefits them more.
David,
Your question is the crux of the issue.
Is it not eye opening to you that half (or less) of the Titleist guys on Tour switched to the X?
In your chart above, how much yardage do you think it's fair to attribute to optimization? It's greater than 0, right?
Regarding your measures, you measured initial ball speed but don't mention spin. I'd think that'd be a key variable when comparing the performance characteristics of the ProV1x to the Balata. Likewise, I don't think your data tells us much of anything about the relative slopes at various swing speeds for different balls.
I wonder if our understanding of optimal launch conditions today were applied to the Balata balls in 2000 what distances might have been able to achieved.
I wonder if our understanding of optimal launch conditions today were applied to the Balata balls in 2000 what distances might have been able to achieved.
This is the heart of my argument against the roll-back guys. I believe the scientists will find a way to get Dustin Johnson hitting it just as far as he does today if we rolled back to the balata so why spend the energy if he's not coming to our courses anyway?
I wonder if our understanding of optimal launch conditions today were applied to the Balata balls in 2000 what distances might have been able to achieved.
Jim,
In 1984, in Atanta, at the Mid-Amateur, Frank Hannigan and I discussed launch angles before anyone ever knew what they were.
Frank was of the opinion, that unlike the days when fairways weren't watered and a low running draw was a shot of choice, the high howitzer like trajectories produced the most distance amongst the Pros and better amateurs.
I had noticed that in the late 60's and early 70's, when I competed and observed Moss Beecroft and other top amateurs at Pinehurst # 2 during the North-South Amateur
This is the heart of my argument against the roll-back guys. I believe the scientists will find a way to get Dustin Johnson hitting it just as far as he does today if we rolled back to the balata so why spend the energy if he's not coming to our courses anyway?
I would disagree with you.
In addition, if the "roll back" ball was a 1980 balata, I think it just might go out of round very quickly.
Few people realize how much better you can putt with a ball that doesn't go out of round ;D
...
So how to do a rollback then? What has been the primary source of the distance gain? ... I believe one of the major reasons has been spin control. ...
So how to roll back the spin changes? ... You change the rules - the ball must have a cover, which must be uniform and has a rather small maximum allowable thickness, and must have a core, which must be uniform. Require a minimum amount of allowable spin when Iron Byron hits it with a driver under a several impact/launch scenarios. With no layers, there's no more engineering the ball to behave differently spin-wise at different swing speeds.
The driver must also be rolled back. But there is no "driver" in the rule book, is there? Nor is the driver the only problem in the world of 300 yard 3Ws. No, this rule change should extend to ALL clubs that are hollow (defined as having a density of less than 0.1 since I know many hollow clubs are filled with foam or similar material to control the sound) Such clubs would be limited in their ability to locate the weight front or back or high or low on the face (side to side is fine, let the average players have clubs that are weighted and/or adjustably weighted to attempt to control their slice) I don't really know enough about how this works to know what the exact limits would be, but I'd say there should be a rule about how far from the center of the front of the face the CoG could be, either up or down or front to back.
...
I think everyone would agree it is impossible to roll back optimization, so that leaves the ball and the driver. Between the two, which benefits the average player more, the ball of today versus the ball of 20 years ago, or the driver of today versus the driver of 20 years ago? I think nearly everyone would agree the driver benefits them more.
I think you would be wrong about that. The driver is still attached to the longest shaft in the bag, and still causes "average" players the most difficulty in squaring the club face. Whereas, the ball is straighter than it used to be, which helps the "average" players that have trouble squaring the club face.
Is it not eye opening to you that half (or less) of the Titleist guys on Tour switched to the X?
In your chart above, how much yardage do you think it's fair to attribute to optimization? It's greater than 0, right?
My recollection is that there were two discontinuous jumps in tour driving distance, in 2001, and in 2003. The jump in 2001 was attributed to the massive adoption of new ball technology. The jump in 2003 was attributed to the coming of age of technical equipment that allowed the players to find the right set up to fully take advantage of the new ball technology.
My recollection is that choosing a ProV1 vs a ProV1x was a primarily matter of taste on short game performance. However, it did allow a few players to get extra distance if that fit their tastes.
I wonder if our understanding of optimal launch conditions today were applied to the Balata balls in 2000 what distances might have been able to achieved.
This is the heart of my argument against the roll-back guys. I believe the scientists will find a way to get Dustin Johnson hitting it just as far as he does today if we rolled back to the balata so why spend the energy if he's not coming to our courses anyway?
Is it not eye opening to you that half (or less) of the Titleist guys on Tour switched to the X?
In your chart above, how much yardage do you think it's fair to attribute to optimization? It's greater than 0, right?
While it doesn't directly answer that question, the trackman data you posted might hint at the major hurdle of such efforts for high swing speeds, while at the same time suggesting a reason why recent the technological advances in the ball help don't really help the average players. At slower swing speeds, it is "optimal" to have relatively more spin on the ball, and at higher swing speeds it is "optimal" to have less. So who does a low a spin ball benefit?
Was injured in '97, came back to play in 2000. Was using a Bridgestone, 10 degree driver/44.5 inches, and took 2 months to relearn
to launch the ball just over 11 degrees (instead of 9.5 with way more spin).
The fitting ideals had changed to a completely different optimum while I was hurt. In my first session, I picked up nearly 10 yards,
simply by changing to more loft and dropping my spin rates. The flight was 100% different than what I played.
I was using the highest spin ball available (Bridgestone), changed my swing a bit to reach a new optimum.
Paul did a lot of the same process, though I believe it was with a Titleist driver and ball.
David,
Your question is the crux of the issue.
I disagree.
I'm happy to discuss it all day long, but the crux of the issue is why do clubs feel the need to change their golf course because Dustin Johnson hit a 6 iron onto the 18th green at Pebble Beach.
Re the LPGA, Titleist currently lists 83 players using their balls. All but one of them use ProV1 or ProV1x. The outlier uses the NXT Tour.
Is it not eye opening to you that half (or less) of the Titleist guys on Tour switched to the X?
Not at all. This has been my point from the beginning. That ball only benefited those with extremely high swing speeds who were looking to "optimize" by decreasing spin.
Jim,
What does that tell you?
Jim N,
Is that the next wave of longer golfer or the next wave of technology or both that you're waiting to see.
To expand on this a bit, one of the arguments that has been made against rolling back the ball is that the distance offered by the Pro V1/V1x has always been available to golfers in the form of balls such as the Top Flite. My experience in the 80s/90s comparing distance between a Titleist Balata or Professional and a Top Flite doesn't bear that out, but let's say that's the case.
We don't need to, for example, lop 10% off the distance for all balls, penalizing 300 yard hitters by 30 yards and 180 yard hitters by 18 yards. We don't need to make low spin balls like the 1980s Top Flite illegal. We don't even need to make balls that act like a Pro V1x when hit by a driver illegal. All we have to do is make balls that act like a Pro V1x off a driver illegal if they also act like a Pro V1x does when struck by a quarter wedge. If it acts like a 1980 era Top Flite when struck by a quarter wedge, then it doesn't matter what it does when struck with a 120 mph driver. Add a one ball rule for amateurs and you're done.
With even a simple change like this, things would sort themselves out pretty well. I'm not saying we couldn't do better with a more fine tuned and well-researched rule change, but this simple change would go a long way toward rolling things back to the 1980s/1990s. Newer drivers have better COR, and I'm sure that accounts for something too, so it wouldn't be a complete rollback, but like I said this is suggested only as a way to get us a good portion of the way there, not turn back the clock completely.
Better players would deliberately give up that yardage they gained in 2001-2003, because they need/want that control around the greens. The 20 handicap who hits the ball a mile and has no clue where it is going will still play the Top Flite type ball like he always has because his only claim to fame is hitting it a long way. But no one is going to build 7700 yard courses for that guy, he's irrelevant in that respect.
Jim N,
Is that the next wave of longer golfer or the next wave of technology or both that you're waiting to see.
I so often hear about the college players (or younger) who send the ball into orbit now -- much further than today's PGA pro's -- I wonder when they will make their mark on the tour.
Jim,
The number of long hitting college kids who make the PGA Tour is irrelevant.
What's relevant is the disconnect between the the golfer and the architecture he was intended to interface with
In a vacuum, with every other launch characteristic held static, I agree that higher speed means higher spin off the driver...but...there are so many variables that make each players launch unique that you cannot assume without some other source that only the extreme longest hitter (hardest hitters) are gaining the advantage offered by the X because you want it to be so.
Actually David, there isn't much correlation between spin and swing speed anymore.
Bubba Watson, who has one of the higher swing speeds has one of the lowest spin rates on tour as evidence by these numbers:
http://www.rotaryswing.com/golf-instruction/golfequipment/golf-launch-monitor.php (http://www.rotaryswing.com/golf-instruction/golfequipment/golf-launch-monitor.php)
Generally, spin is more a reflection on angle of attack than swing speed as evidenced by these Trackman numbers from Long Drive World Championships.
http://www.longdrivers.com/sites/default/files/documents/trackman2012.pdf (http://www.longdrivers.com/sites/default/files/documents/trackman2012.pdf)
Jim N,
Is that the next wave of longer golfer or the next wave of technology or both that you're waiting to see.
I so often hear about the college players (or younger) who send the ball into orbit now -- much further than today's PGA pro's -- I wonder when they will make their mark on the tour.
Jim,
The number of long hitting college kids who make the PGA Tour is irrelevant.
What's relevant is the disconnect between the the golfer and the architecture he was intended to interface with
So how would getting rid of balls that only benefit the elite of the elite hurt average golfers or make the game less fun? Please don't tell me again how you think Dustin Johnson could hit it just as far with a less "optimal" ball. I am asking about the average golfer. How would the average golfer be hurt if the ProV1x was deemed non-conforming?A bit before I asked:
Do you think the average golfer gained as many yards by switching from the Balata to the ProV1 as the elite player? How about if each had switched to the ProV1x? And how about if the "average" golfer was closer to 80 mph than 90 mph?
David,
Do you think the guys that play the ProV1x sacrifice spin to do so?
Perhaps you'd better get out there and tell the ladies that the ProV's aren't the right answer for their slow swing speeds. ;)
Jim N,
Is that the next wave of longer golfer or the next wave of technology or both that you're waiting to see.
I so often hear about the college players (or younger) who send the ball into orbit now -- much further than today's PGA pro's -- I wonder when they will make their mark on the tour.
Jim,
The number of long hitting college kids who make the PGA Tour is irrelevant.
What's relevant is the disconnect between the the golfer and the architecture he was intended to interface with
Pat, I agree completely with your second sentence, and suspect the only way to preserve the architecture is with a tournament ball (unlikely to occur).
My question is whether, without more technological advances, players on tour will keep hitting the ball further.
Jim,
I think so, but, not in leaps and bounds. But, I could be wrong about that as well.
And, I can't imagine that there won't be more hi-tech advances, especially in shafts.
I do know that one ball company was testing the paint/collorant/ball surface to reduce wind resistance a few years ago.
I can't see why hi-tech wouldn't continue to be employed to gain distance.
Will today's young bombers soon regularly drive the ball 330 yards on top tour courses?
I believe that 300+ will be the new "norm"
Jim,
Could you please point out to me where I claimed "only 120+MPH guys benefit from the ProV1x?"
With respect Jim, it seems like you are just making shit up. You don't expect me to make a case for things you are just making up, do you?
Your theory that someone with an average swing speed would benefit from hitting the ProV1x isn't even worth addressing. Likewise your claim that golfers choose the ProV1x "regardless of swing speed." If they do, they are idiots.
And you still haven't answered most of the questions above.
I believe Jim meant that if a player is using a Pinnacle with average swing speed, then he would benefit from hitting the ProV1x. Of course there are a lot of other balls he would benefit from too, like the three piece SnakeEyes tour that will cost him about the same as his two piece Pinnacle.
Jim,
If not even the all of the top golfers swing hard enough (and with enough spin) to benefit from this ball, do you really think the average golfer is benefitting from this new technology? Wasn't that your point earlier? That a rollback of this type of technology would make golf less fun for the other 150 golfers? So how would getting rid of balls that only benefit the elite of the elite hurt average golfers or make the game less fun? Please don't tell me again how you think Dustin Johnson could hit it just as far with a less "optimal" ball. I am asking about the average golfer.
So, you tell me. What MPH is the breakpoint for benefiting from the ProV1x?
Technology aimed at minimizing spin doesn't help them.
Jim I think your experience as a good player might be making this hard for you to comprehend. The combination you are suggesting is, at best, very rare.
Pat,
My point all along is that less than 1% of players make any course remotely obsolete so stop spending money you don't have to cater to people who don't care.
I'm saying the very best players in the world (the ones making any course obsolete) don't care.
The various members of the club making the decision hold the blame when this debate turns to cost and time as negatives due to increased distance.
Pat,
My point all along is that less than 1% of players make any course remotely obsolete so stop spending money you don't have to cater to people who don't care.
But Jim, that's not true.
High school kids are hitting it further than Nicklaus in his prime.
60 year old guys who are 10 handicaps are hitting it 300.
It's systemic, yet you cling to confining the context to an extremely narrow sub-set, the PGA Tour Pros.
Why do you think local clubs have been lengthening their courses for the past 3 decades ? ? ?
Jim I think your experience as a good player might be making this hard for you to comprehend. The combination you are suggesting is, at best, very rare.
My bet is that it's less rare than the number of people making golf courses obsolete.
Pat,
My point all along is that less than 1% of players make any course remotely obsolete so stop spending money you don't have to cater to people who don't care.
Pat,
My point all along is that less than 1% of players make any course remotely obsolete so stop spending money you don't have to cater to people who don't care.
The fact is that existing courses are being lengthened and are being designed longer. Whether you think it matters for less than 1% of players or even if it only mattered for Dustin Johnson is utterly irrelevant in the face of the fact that it is happening. Telling people to stop will not stop it, any more than telling the sun to stop rising in the east will make it so.
Golf is being made more expensive at a rate much faster than inflation between the changes being made to lengthen older courses, and the increased land and construction costs for new courses, and the increased maintenance for both, simply because too many people like you think if you stick your fingers in your ears and yell "la la la!" loud enough the problem will go away.
Some of us have been saying this was a problem for a decade now, and I'm astounded there are still people who deny it, or claim that it is less than 1% of golfers who are affected. Everyone is affected, even women who can only manage a 40 mph swing speed, because they pay the same green fees as a guy bombing it 320 from the back tees. Some part of the blame for slower play, which also affects everyone, can be placed on longer courses since it only takes a handful of people playing more slowly to slow things down for the groups behind them for hours to come.
Explain to me how a golfer with a 70 or 80 mph swing would ever benefit from a ball like that? How would they generate the "optimal" spin without losing ball speed?
No David, I'm not interested in that conversation.
I'm interested in your assertion that only the elite of the elite benefit from the ProV1x so it should be banned.
...
And, that there are another 290,000 (1%) of amateur and pro golfers who hit the ball a long way, but are not so visible to the masses.
...
Re slow swing speeds, I guess I'd have to say that 80 mph seems really slow to me. According to the Trackman Combine numbers, 15 handicap women on average hit the ball at 79 mph. That translates to a carry of about 150 yards. I've played a long time and with a lot of people and I honestly don't recall any/many who could only drive the ball 150 yards. If your premise is that people at and below that swing speed didn't see an advantage from the ProV1x, I'd have to agree. I think any loss they would have experienced would have been negligible too.
If you're comfortable turning the game on its head for <1% of its participants, fine. Just don't think I'm the one ignoring the bigger picture. The game can regain its intimacy and charm if operators would simply focus on what makes their game unique to begin with and develop their facilities around those factors.
Bryan, Regarding your post to Doug, I think you are drastically underestimating the number of golfers who hit the ball "a long way" and also drastically overestimating the cost of reining in the ball.
I based my guesstimates on my experience playing with a lot people. At my club there are only two people who legitimately hit the ball 300 yards. There are more who think they do, but really don't. Many if not most golfers overestimate their distance abilities. You may have had different experiences and that is fine.
I wasn't thinking in terms of "cost", but rather impact. You're going to impact 99% of all the golfers. You are also going to impact all the equipment manufacturers. I understand that you don't think that impact is significant. But impact the many for the benefit of the few .......[/color]
As for the former, I think Doug's point was simply that the number or percentage doesn't matter as much as the fact that the courses are being changed, and newer courses are being built longer. In this regard I keep thinking of a comment made by Tom Doak on a thread about Streamsong, in response to an observation (might have been yours) about how one of the courses seemed to be lacking in shorter par fours. If I recall correctly, the response was that the owner wanted the courses to be of a certain length, and that (in part) was responsible for all the longer par fours. If our best architects are stretching out their new courses to meet some silly distance goal which (if I recall correctly) was way too long for the vast majority of golfers, then it seems it would be hard to deny the fact that the equipment is adversely impacting the architecture.
I remember the TD thing, but not sure you've got it right. There are certainly short par 4's on both courses. Regardless, yes, the owner wanted a "championship" length. I don't think you can lay that at the architect's door. It's the owners who are demanding this. The architects deliver on the brief in order to get paid.
....................................
Agreed to disagree on what slow swing speed is.
I know some have, but I haven't really focused my suggestions for regulation on spin rate. If you recall, my focus has been on pushing back the distance at the top end while at the same time regulating the slope of the aggregate swing speed curve (that you don't like to call a curve). In other words, focus not just on total distance, but also on the distance gained per incremental increase in mph.
Yes, I understand your position. What you are suggesting is "compression" of driving distances. Who would know what the "right" level of compression is? Looks like a hornet's nest to me. I'm still interested in knowing what the slope was with the Balata ball. I could be convinced that there was a difference in slope introduced by the modern ball, but only if there was some reliable data to support the claim
.............................
Here is an article from the R&A published last May, regarding distance off the tee. http://www.randa.org/en/RandA/News/News/2013/May/Drive-Distance.aspx According to the article, they have been keeping track of driving distance of various levels of golfers since 1996. Some points from the article.
- Average driving distance in 1996 was 200 yards.
- Average driving distance in 2012 was 208 yards.
- From 1996 through 2012, the average golfer gained 3 yards off the tee with a driver.
Golfers used to hit many more balls with three wood off tee, so 8 yard gain was mostly attributable to the fact that most golfers started hitting drivers. The three yard gain represents the driver to driver comparison for the two years.
Bryan, wouldn't the 208 yard drive extrapolate to about an 85 mph swing speed, even leaving plenty of room for mishits?
It seems to be a commonly held belief that the longest hitters get some additional benefit from modern balls. In fact, hitting golf balls obeys the law of diminishing returns, namely for each mile per hour of added swing speed a slower golfer gains more distance than a high swing speed golfer, like Bubba Watson. The longest hitters have to combat additional losses due to extra compression and also overcome greater drag forces; as well as needing to keep the ball closer to the target line.
People often say that non-elite golfers do not benefit from innovations in technology, this is not true. They do benefit, but perhaps not as often! Due to higher levels of variation it is harder for them to realise the benefits, but they are there for the taking.
Re slow swing speeds, I guess I'd have to say that 80 mph seems really slow to me. According to the Trackman Combine numbers, 15 handicap women on average hit the ball at 79 mph. That translates to a carry of about 150 yards. I've played a long time and with a lot of people and I honestly don't recall any/many who could only drive the ball 150 yards. If your premise is that people at and below that swing speed didn't see an advantage from the ProV1x, I'd have to agree. I think any loss they would have experienced would have been negligible too.
80 mph = 150 yards? That seems impossible to me, since I believe 120 mph around the point where 300 yard carries start to occur. We would definitely be seeing supralinear increases in distance per mph increase if both numbers are accurate. Since other posters have claimed this is not the case, then either they're wrong or you're wrong. I'd bet 80 mph is closer to a 200 yard carry.
Anyone have any monitor results with real world golfers that show a wider range than the type 80-120 mph, down to say 50 mph?
Bryan,
Years ago, two British scientists wrote a book about ball compression and they discovered, at the time, that the highest compression ball produced the best results for all golfers.
Now, that was back before the one piece ball.
I have the book in a pile in a back closet.
This weekend I'll retrieve it.
To put those numbers in context, we'd have to know how much the swing speeds changed between 1996 and 2012 and in what ways did the launch parameters and smash factors change. In my opinion, between 1996 and 2012 the average swing pseed on the PGA Tour probably increased and more optimal launch conditions are used now compared to 16 years ago. Lie, damn lies and statistics ............
According to the Trackman chart 208 yards of carry would be about 90 mph.
It amazes me every time this conversation comes along how the rollback crowd fully exempts the owners, operators and developers for their role in the expansion of golf course length and overall size. It's never the people that actually fund and build and renovate/expand these courses...it has to be the USGA because they let Titleist put a balata cover on a Pinnacle.
I'll take the best players in the game to Gulph Mills GC, or LuLu, or Applebrook and it'll be entertaining as hell. And guess what, we can all play those courses the next day and have a great time as well.
Question, if people are lengthening their courses regardless of the likelihood of Dustin Johnson showing up, what's to stop them from lengthening it if Dustin Johnson all of the sudden hit the ball 10% shorter due to a roll back? Based on stories I've heard, I'm betting Davis Love could have hit a 6 iron onto #18 at Pebble in 1985...what about that? Here in the Philly area, Huntingdon Valley hosted a good amateur tournament for years. In the early 90's a guy by the name of Ed Bolton showed up and hit the ball further than anyone I've seen since...bar none. What about him?
Develop and manage the courses for your clientele's enjoyment and you'll have a successful operation.
But how do you suggest holding them accountable?
But how do you suggest holding them accountable?
By not playing their golf courses.
Jim,
Are you stating that you'll never play Pine Valley and Merion again ?
Are you advising all of us to reject playing those courses when invited ?
My reaction to Doug would have been better said in general terms because each clubs situation is different. A big difference I see to blame for these misguided attempts is the focus on profitability; either through for-profit ownership or by an over supply of courses and a lack of membership demand in many regions...including here in the suburbs of Philadelphia.
It amazes me every time this conversation comes along how the rollback crowd fully exempts the owners, operators and developers for their role in the expansion of golf course length and overall size. It's never the people that actually fund and build and renovate/expand these courses...it has to be the USGA because they let Titleist put a balata cover on a Pinnacle.
I'll take the best players in the game to Gulph Mills GC, or LuLu, or Applebrook and it'll be entertaining as hell. And guess what, we can all play those courses the next day and have a great time as well.
Question, if people are lengthening their courses regardless of the likelihood of Dustin Johnson showing up, what's to stop them from lengthening it if Dustin Johnson all of the sudden hit the ball 10% shorter due to a roll back? Based on stories I've heard, I'm betting Davis Love could have hit a 6 iron onto #18 at Pebble in 1985...what about that? Here in the Philly area, Huntingdon Valley hosted a good amateur tournament for years. In the early 90's a guy by the name of Ed Bolton showed up and hit the ball further than anyone I've seen since...bar none. What about him?
Develop and manage the courses for your clientele's enjoyment and you'll have a successful operation.
It was probably a poor choice of words...but you bring up good examples.
That's why Ran pays me the big bucks ;D
My contention is that golf courses/clubs, in the quest for recognition are developing their way out of financial viability with the big, wide, non-personal approach.
But, that's contradictory.
You don't increase profitability by spending capital on lengthening your course and you don't improve profibility by increasing operating expenses by having to maintain "more" golf course.
I look at it a little differently.
You have to provide a "field of play" commensurate with the ability of the golfers who play your course.
And, as Shivas used to say, "chics dig the long ball".
You have to respond to what the trend, produced by hi-tech and as seen on TV is.
I believe golf is at its healthiest when it presents an intimate yet social experience. Pine Valley and Merion both excel at pleasing their membership and its guests.
I completely agree.
But, then you'll run into those who claim that that environment doesn't grow the game
They're not the problem with golf...and neither is Dustin Johnson hitting 18 at Pebble Beach with a 6 iron.
They're as complicit as every other club that's lengthened it's golf course
My reaction to Doug would have been better said in general terms because each clubs situation is different. A big difference I see to blame for these misguided attempts is the focus on profitability; either through for-profit ownership or by an over supply of courses and a lack of membership demand in many regions...including here in the suburbs of Philadelphia.
If a club is run inefficiently, it will cost more to belong.
Clubs must run efficiently, hence, the profit motive or break even motive isn't a bad thing
You have to provide a "field of play" commensurate with the ability of the golfers who play your course.
Patrick,QuoteYou have to provide a "field of play" commensurate with the ability of the golfers who play your course.
This sounds like a truism.
But all courses I know of have members/golfers who range widely in ability (and length).
When the distance spectrum is widened that presents a greater dilemma for the architect, thus that objective has become far more difficult
My home course was built as a testing "championship" course. Things have turned out somewhat differently than the original owners intended and we now have, at most, a handful of members who have the ability to play the 7500 yard tips. Heck, even the Monday qualifier for the Canadian Open doesn't use all our back tees.
Isn't the crux of the problem that it is impossible to design a golf course where all members of the course will interact with the "architecture" in the same way,
When the distance spectrum is widened that presents a greater dilemma for the architect
regardless of a rolled back ball or not?
That's where we disagree.
As the distance spectrum is compressed, more golfers interface with the architecture as intended.
The "roll back" would institute that compression.
and, regardless of the use of multiple tees?
Multiple tees are a practical approach, but as the distance spectrum expands more tees become necessary.
Initially, ALL golfers teed off on the next hole by teeing their ball up within one club length of the cup on the hole just completed.
It took close to 100 years to change that rule............ To two (2) club lengths.
The creation of more tees followed the broadening of the spectrum as more elements or sub-sets of golfers were catered to.
Today, it's not uncommon to see five (5) or more sets of tees
Or, do you have in mind a movement to homogenous memberships where all have similar length and abilities?
No, but perhaps reversing the trend and heading back toward the one tee principle might not be a bad idea.
While interfacing with the architecture is a primary objective, I think that the creation of multiple tees is often a concession to ego and the need to make a par.
In truth, multiple tees are a form of dumbing down the game versus the one tee concept.
Since multiple tees are unlikely to vanish and since a roll back is unlikely, the architect will be unreasonably challenged as the distance spectrum expands.
In the footnotes he reports that the Professional and Balata balls have lost 7 -10% of their wight compared to the ProV's. The elastic windings probably have dehydrated over time. Lighter balls definitely go less far.
... the new balls have diminishing returns for better players ...
Jim,
Is the logical extension of this thinking that we should roll back the ball so that elite players are not rewarded for their highly developed skills and abilities to make consistent, high speed, optimal strikes of the golf ball?
Jim,
Is the logical extension of this thinking that we should roll back the ball so that elite players are not rewarded for their highly developed skills and abilities to make consistent, high speed, optimal strikes of the golf ball?
With respect, Bryan, I think this is a fallacious argument. Elite players have always been rewarded for their abilities and they would be amply rewarded even after a rollback. Or do you believe that they weren't being "rewarded" for the past century before these last big distance jumps?
Jim,
Is the logical extension of this thinking that we should roll back the ball so that elite players are not rewarded for their highly developed skills and abilities to make consistent, high speed, optimal strikes of the golf ball?
With respect, Bryan, I think this is a fallacious argument. Elite players have always been rewarded for their abilities and they would be amply rewarded even after a rollback. Or do you believe that they weren't being "rewarded" for the past century before these last big distance jumps?
...
Re your comments on historical proportionality, perhaps you could specify what you think the right proportionality and define the parameters for the elite and average golfers that contributed to that "correct" historical proportionality. How would you deal with the likely fact that there is a greater gap in swing speeds today than there was 20 or 50 or whatever years ago. Swing speed is key to distance.
...
If so, how would you tell better players they couldn't play a hard ball if they felt like it? Let's say the ProV (and similar balls) is gone, how can you tell elite players they can't play a DT, or Pinnacle?
If you ever find some reasonably statistically meaningful data comparing driving distances for 1995 and 2013, I'd be happy to go with whatever that data tells us.
Today, I watched the Olympic men's hockey gold final game. Not very long ago I re-watched some of the 1972 Canada Russia hockey series - a seminal event in hockey. The difference in skill and speed between today's game and that of 1972 is astonishing. Even if I was young again my hockey abilities would be very much further removed from those of professional players today than they were from the 1972 players. The current crop of players are bigger, faster, stronger, and more broadly skilled than those of 1972. It is no wonder to me at all that the gap in my "amateur" skills and the professionals' have widened over the years. I'd say that in every sport the gap between elite levels and the amateur rank and file has widened. To go back to some previous level of proportionality seems to me to be the wishful thinking of Luddites. These guys are good - and they are more and more better than us.
Vis-a-vis your two questions, no I don't dispute that elite players hit the ball substantially farther than they did a few decades ago. I've been posting my annual graph of average distance on the PGA Tour for some years now. To me, based on the blue best fit polynomial curve in the chart below, I see a period of distance stability from 1985 to 1995 followed by a gain of 25 yards or so from 1995 to 2005 followed by another period of stability from 2005 until 2013. I attribute that gain to the ball, the 460cc driver head, lighter driver shafts (both resulting in higher swing speeds), optimization, better conditioning of most elite athletes, and probably faster course conditions. I have no idea, nor apparently does anybody else, as to how much each contributed to the gain.
(http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee260/350dtm/PGATourAverageDrivingDistaces2013-1.jpg~original)
I've read David's comments to indicate he wants the advantage the longer hitters picked up by switching to the ProV1 (and it's competing balls) rolled back. In essence, a bogey golfer was likely using a hard ball pre-2000 and is still using a hard ball (even if it's a ProV) so they gained virtually nothing. Better players were using soft balls (because you couldn't chip with a hard ball) and switched to hard balls and picked up ~30 yards.
First of all, is that correct, David?
If so, how would you tell better players they couldn't play a hard ball if they felt like it? Let's say the ProV (and similar balls) is gone, how can you tell elite players they can't play a DT, or Pinnacle?
I think average players were using hard balls pre-2000 primarily because those balls were cheaper and more durable. You are assuming that average players hit those balls farther than they would have hit a Balata or a Professional, but I don't accept that assumption.
In the first paragraph you provide an illustration of how "elite" athletes are bigger/stronger than they used to be. In the second paragraph, you list that among potential reasons why distance increased during 1995 to 2005. I don't see any reason why you think that is limited to elite athletes, though. Why shouldn't amateur athletes get bigger/stronger for whatever reason you may attribute to this happening for elite athletes?
You think 15 handicappers would hit balatas further than DT's or Pinnacles?
I think average players were using hard balls pre-2000 primarily because those balls were cheaper and more durable. You are assuming that average players hit those balls farther than they would have hit a Balata or a Professional, but I don't accept that assumption.
You think 15 handicappers would hit balatas further than DT's or Pinnacles?
In the first paragraph you provide an illustration of how "elite" athletes are bigger/stronger than they used to be. In the second paragraph, you list that among potential reasons why distance increased during 1995 to 2005. I don't see any reason why you think that is limited to elite athletes, though. Why shouldn't amateur athletes get bigger/stronger for whatever reason you may attribute to this happening for elite athletes?
Doug,
Elite players have improved their technique for hitting the ball far, which the new equipment encourages, while the average player has not. This is part of the definition of elite I think.
That said, when the average player catches one today they gain at least as much as the better players did.
...
Do you really think that the ProV1x is comparable distance wise to the old rock Pinnacle? How about if we just focused on carry distance? Still comparable?
All I'm really saying is that when today's ball (ProV1) is struck well with today's driver it goes much farther the ball and drivers of 20 years ago...the problem is the best players hit the ball properly more frequently than lesser players so they gain the benefit more frequently.
Jim, Mis-hits aren't really the issue, and modern equipment has greatly compensated for off center hits.
The ball, the shaft, the driver head and the understanding of launch conditions have all improved greatly over the last 20 years with the best players best able to exploit those improvements.
It's enabled everyone to make strides in distance
IF, in total, those improvements equal 40 yards, the ball is only one part of it...the key part, but just one part.
Agreed, but, it's a major part.
Jim
My issue with the Pinnacle comparisons is that no matter what happens with the technology, people always claim, "Well the old Pinnacle went just as far." Take a look again at that experiment done by Andrew Rice. The 2011 ProV1 was 12 yards longer than the ProV1-392 from about a decade before. And the ProV1x-392 was another 9 yards longer than than that! So which one exactly equaled the old Pinnacle? It cannot be all of them, can it? There have been other ball improvements since the old Pinnacle, including improvements in aerodynamics of the balls, and I think we are past the point that we can say all the balls equal the old Pinnacle distance-wise.
As for slower swing players, I really don't know if they were better off distance-wise with a Pinnacle or a Balata, but given they usually need relatively more spin to optimize distance, I have trouble understanding how a lower spin ball served them best.
David, or anyone really,
What do you think would happen if we tested a balata against a ProV1 using equipment from 20 years ago?
David, or anyone really,
What do you think would happen if we tested a balata against a ProV1 using equipment from 20 years ago?
David, or anyone really,
What do you think would happen if we tested a balata against a ProV1 using equipment from 20 years ago?
It is worth theorizing that a larger percentage of the improvement might just be attributed to the shaft's effect on swing speed. Today's modern shaft usually weighs 75 grams or less, about half what the steel shaft on the MacGregor Byron Nelson driver weighed. But the 200 grams on the end of that shaft is the same force on today's heads, although the weight is better distributed. The faster you can swing that mass, the more it can improve your distance. Moreover, shaft technology has elevated to the point where the same stability that better players with faster swings found in steel shafts years ago is nearly the same today in graphite shafts that weigh half as much.
It's not clear whether one set of numbers and a few swings through history on the range of a PGA Tour event last week confirm that idea or call it into question. But isolating the effect to either club or ball seems impossible. Rather, today's club-ball system seems to exceed the sum of its parts.
David,
I am probably out of date on golf balls. After doing some searching on the web, it appears that both Pinnacle and TopFlite have softened their balls from the good old days when I used to blast away with them.
With three piece balls available for some time now, I dropped using TopFlite rocks quite awhile ago first for Strata Pros, and then TopFlite Tours and TopFlite Gamers.
(http://www.golfdigest.com/images/golfworld/2009/05/090529stachurachart2.jpg)
... Was it 19 years old, or does Titleist still have a balata making line in operation in some corner of one of their factories that can make new balatas?
As legacy ball companies such as Top-Flite, Wilson and Dunlop began giving way to new-guard Callaway, Nike and TaylorMade, Titleist stood tall. It had the No. 1 ball in competitive golf.
But Titleist knew it could not rest on its laurels. In a move that at the time seemed more evolutionary than revolutionary, the engineers sought to combine its two types of balls. For the next five years, they went through countless prototypes.
As robot testing took place at Titleist's Manchester Lane test facility in Acushnet, Mass., where the company's main headquarters are located, one prototype kept drawing their attention -- a solid core (taken from the distance balls), surrounded by the surlyn casing (taken from the performance balls), with a 392-dimple icosahedral design homegrown urethane cover that gave the ball a veneer look and helped transmit a softer sensation to the hands while providing more spin.
...............................
You keep circling back to swing speed and athleticism as having played a large role in the increased distances. I don't deny that these things may have played some sort of role (especially as young players develop within this new equipment regime,) but I think you and others are dramatically overstating the significance of these variables in helping explain the changes over the relevant period. You never seem to accept my efforts to do so, but you are savvy enough with the numbers so that you could go into the data and (as best you can) try to control the swing speed and athleticism. If you do, I think you will see that the primary factor is indeed changing technology.
................................
Where are the studies indicating a significant increase in swing speed or athleticism has played a major role in the increased distances? Likewise, where is the study indicating that what you call the "likely fact" that the gap in swing speeds has increased? I understand the anecdotal appeal of such a claim, and there may be a grain of truth to it, but I simply don't buy that it is responsible for the magnitude of changes we have seen. Also, Bryan, keep in mind that swing speed and technology are very much related. Lighter shafts, better materials, less twisting, different, larger club heads. All theoretically allow a golfer to swing harder without adverse consequences. That is technology.
...................................
I attribute that gain to the ball, the 460cc driver head, lighter driver shafts (both resulting in higher swing speeds), optimization, better conditioning of most elite athletes, and probably faster course conditions. I have no idea, nor apparently does anybody else, as to how much each contributed to the gain.
...
I "believe", but can't prove, that these factors (mostly technology) are involved. I don't know what percentage to attribute to each. You seem to "believe" that it's primarily (?? %) the ball. I get it. So far, I'm agnostic on this. When you can provide some credible statistically significant data that clarifies it, I'll happily consider it. And, I'll keep looking on my own.
...
Surlyn® Ionomer
DuPont™ Surlyn® resins are ionically cross-linked thermoplastics based upon ethylene copolymerised with carboxyl groups and a metal ion to give a unique material. They deliver impact toughness, abrasion resistance and chemical resistance in a variety of consumer and industrial products, or use in other plastics as a modifier.
Also typically used as a food contact or seal layer in flexible packaging, DuPont™ Surlyn® packaging resins are optimised for efficient blown film and extrusion coating. Choose from a wide variety of proven grades, to meet specific packaging needs. Overall Surlyn® resins give design versatility, crystal-like transparency and chemical resistance.
Bryan, I believe it is mostly due to technology. I focus on the ball because the ball has played a very large role and also it seems easiest to fix.
Re the R&A study, you have the same info I do.
My problem with tests like this is that guys like Chad Campbell have optimized their swings for the newer equipment, and the new ball is certainly optimized for the launch characteristics of new equipment. So how much is it really worth?
Jim
The 2011 ProV1 was 12 yards longer than the ProV1-392 from about a decade before. And the ProV1x-392 was another 9 yards longer than than that!
I think I wrote "a large role," didn't I? Although "roll" might have worked too, I guess.
I think pgatour data indicating large jumps in individual player distances which directly corresponds to the date they switched balls is pretty good evidence that the ball played a large role. See again the chart of those who switched to the ProV1x, for example.
I think I wrote "a large role," didn't I? Although "roll" might have worked too, I guess.
I think pgatour data indicating large jumps in individual player distances which directly corresponds to the date they switched balls is pretty good evidence that the ball played a large role. See again the chart of those who switched to the ProV1x, for example.
At one point Tom Paul reported on here that the USGA told him the new balls went 25 yards farther than the old balls.
This was quite a awhile after our original discussions here.
I think I wrote "a large role," didn't I? Although "roll" might have worked too, I guess.
I think pgatour data indicating large jumps in individual player distances which directly corresponds to the date they switched balls is pretty good evidence that the ball played a large role. See again the chart of those who switched to the ProV1x, for example.
At one point Tom Paul reported on here that the USGA told him the new balls went 25 yards farther than the old balls.
This was quite a awhile after our original discussions here.
Across the board?
Has Titleist contacted you yet? I think they'd love to hear their ProV1 is 20 yards longer than the original ProV1's...have a big number in mind David, I love a happy ending!
BTW, I think you stated earlier that optimizing launch conditions could result in the loss of ball speed. Why do you think that? Just curious.
If an average golfer uses all the latest equipment (including whichever ProV1x you want) and hits one on the screws they'll be demonstrably longer than they were with a 43" steel shafted Persimmon driver and a balata ball. I'd bet it's a higher percentage increase than the Tour guys...
Bryan, I think I said that trying to optimize by adjusting one particular component may adversely impact other components. For and exaggerated example, in theory one could increase club head speed trying to swing really hard and by switching to a 50 inch shaft, but ultimately that might have an adverse impact the quality of strike and the efficiency of the energy transfer to the ball. You keep talking about launch angle, but changing one's swing (or equipment) to achieve a certain launch angle might have a detrimental impact on other components, such as ball velocity. They are all interrelated.
Jeff,
I don't think anyone has ever pulled apart all of the pieces...who would want to? And have the resources to...
No cornfields here!!!
Jeff - that's what's interesting. If I'm understanding Jim right, he's suggesting that the disproportionately larger distance gain (achieved by the pros over the amateurs) is caused neither by the ball itself nor by the head-shaft itself (as both ball and head-shaft have in isolation increased distances for both average golfer and pro alike) but by the new understanding of the critical relationship between launch angles and spin rates (i.e. the ball in relationship with the head-shaft), which relationship the pros have taken much greater advantage of than the amateurs.
Peter
Jim - sorry, saw your post at the last second and decided to post anyway.
Jeff,
I don't think anyone has ever pulled apart all of the pieces...who would want to? And have the resources to...
No cornfields here!!!
I'd bet a large stack that Titleist knows,smaller stacks on TMAG and Callaway.
Jeff,
No more charts or graphs for at least a few minutes. ;D
...
If an average golfer uses all the latest equipment (including whichever ProV1x you want) and hits one on the screws they'll be demonstrably longer than they were with a 43" steel shafted Persimmon driver and a balata ball. I'd bet it's a higher percentage increase than the Tour guys...
...
...
If an average golfer uses all the latest equipment (including whichever ProV1x you want) and hits one on the screws they'll be demonstrably longer than they were with a 43" steel shafted Persimmon driver and a balata ball. I'd bet it's a higher percentage increase than the Tour guys...
...
If you mean a golfer with an average swing speed of perhaps 90 mph, then that statement is illogical and unmathematical.
In particular, the higher percentage part.
You increase the length of the driver, and get them to hit it on the screws, of course they are longer.
If an average golfer uses all the latest equipment (including whichever ProV1x you want) and hits one on the screws they'll be demonstrably longer than they were with a 43" steel shafted Persimmon driver and a balata ball. I'd bet it's a higher percentage increase than the Tour guys...
ha ha - I just noticed that as the long winter drags on, we're all reverting to type:
GJ - thinking mathematics and what he calls logic
Jim - always 'just wondering...' but not really
Me - recapping other people's posts, with no ideas of my own
David M - not accepting the premise, but not letting go
Jeff - writing 5 word sentences, period
Bryan - flipping flow charts that no one understands
What a motley crew! Golf season can't start soon enough! :)
Doug,
What is the Chad Campbell table worth? Not a whole lot - it's just another anecdotal uncontrolled test. I thought it was interesting, so shared it.
How much do you think your swing speed increased between the 43.5" rebar shafted heavy persimmon headed driver and your 45" 65 gram tip stiff nanotube shafted 460cc 200 gram titanium headed driver? Each mph increase is worth 2.5 to 3 yards of distance.
If your contention is that the distance spread between top players and average players is too great, the potential distance an average players hits the ball is half of the information you need. Obviously it comforts you to ignore it but that wouldn't be REALISTIC, would it?
By the way, the main part of my contention is that the elite players and long hitters hit it too far for the architecture. I don't need to know much about 15 handicaps to support that contention do I?
Jim,
The reason the pros gained distance with the new ball was the new ball's mitigation of spin produced by their high swing speeds. The slower swingers gained disproportionally less from this mitigation.
If you look at David's patent application from 1990 just above, it looks like they were testing at 3200 rpm for the balata ball.
Jim,
The reason the pros gained distance with the new ball was the new ball's mitigation of spin produced by their high swing speeds. The slower swingers gained disproportionally less from this mitigation.
Garland,
How much did the new ball mitigate the spin. Can you ballpark the Balata spin rate and the ProV1 spin rate off the driver. For guidance, modern optimal spin rates for high speed swings seems to be between 1700 and 3000 rpm depending on the angle of attack. If you look at David's patent application from 1990 just above, it looks like they were testing at 3200 rpm for the balata ball.
Are you saying that a mitigation of 500 to 1000 rpm for spin leads to significant gains in distance (say 20 yards)? Or did you have larger spin mitigation in mind?
The properties were measured according to the following parameters:
Riehle compression is a measurement of the deformation of a golf ball in inches under a fixed static load of 225 pounds.
Coefficient of restitution (C.O.R.) was measured by firing the resulting golf ball is an air cannon at a velocity of 125 feet per second against a steel plate which is positioned 12 feet from the muzzle of the cannon. The rebound velocity was then measured. The rebound velocity was divided by the forward velocity to give the coefficient of restitution.
Shore hardness was measured in accordance with ASTM Test 2240.
Cut resistance was measured in accordance with the following procedure: A golf ball is fired at 135 feet per second against the leading edge of a pitching wedge, wherein the leading edge radius is 1/32 inch, the loft angle is 51 degrees, the sole radius is 2.5 inches, and the bounce angle is 7 degrees.
The cut resistance of the balls tested herein was evaluated on a scale of 1-5. 5 represents a cut that extends completely through the cover to the core; a 4 represents a cut that does not extend completely through the cover but that does break the surface; a 3 does not break the surface of the cover but does leave a permanent dent; a 2 leaves only a slight crease which is permanent but not as severe as 3; and a 1 represents virtually no visible indentation or damage of any sort.
The spin rate of the golf ball was measured by striking the resulting golf balls with a pitching wedge or 9-iron wherein the club-head speed is about 80 feet per second and the ball is launched at an angle of 26 to 34 degrees with an initial velocity of about 110-115 feet per second. The spin rate was measured by observing the rotation of the ball in flight using stop action Strobe photography.
Initial velocity is the velocity of a golf ball when struck at a hammer speed of 143.8 feet per second in accordance with a test as prescribed by the U.S.G.A.
Garland,
How much more than 1000? I have been hitting an old balata in a sim and getting spin rates and they don't very often get up to 4000. I suspect that elite players in the 1990's could probably control the spin to a lower level than that. They were using very low lofted drivers in the 6 -8* range, presumably for that purpose.
Have a go at the Flightscope Trajectory Optimizer. As a mathematician you might find it interesting to fool around with the spin rates while holding other factors constant. You have to get a pretty large spin differential to effect any kind of significant distance change. If you hope to dial Bubba or DJ back 10% through spin you're probably going to have to prescribe a minimum spin rate up around 5500 rpms to achieve it. I don't think that is very practical.
... If you hope to dial Bubba or DJ back 10% through spin you're probably going to have to prescribe a minimum spin rate up around 5500 rpms to achieve it. I don't think that is very practical.
I just reviewed my Common Sense Clubfitting by Tom Wishon. He says spin rate is a minor factor in the distance a ball goes off the driver. So, I may be the one that is illogical and unmathematical. ;) :o :o :(
He says it has been over-emphasized in clubfitting, with a range of up to 1000 rpm making little or no difference.
Does it concern me? Nope. Twenty one yards on "firm" (or "firm and dry") ground isn't all that much roll for a driver or a five iron, and is right in line with the other balata balls. They aren't testing to a green. And I don't really buy into the theory that the Balatas spun too much of the tee to produce much roll.
The interesting figure to me is in the standard deviation in the "spin test." It looks like the Titleist balata covered balls (and a few others) were much more consistent in their spin characteristics.
...
The patent application on the last page indicates that in their test, at 109 mph swing speed, the old Top Flite II traveled only 273 yards, which was only 7 yards longer than the Titleist Balata, and the Titleist DT 100 traveled only 2 yards longer than the balata.
So are these numbers wrong or misleading? Or are we misremembering these old hard balls?
Jim and Garland, Are you still sticking with your theory that the there has been no distance improvement between the old hard balls and balls like the ProV1x?
FWIW, I don't remember if the Top Flite II was a typical distance ball or not. The patent application treats it as if it was, but I don't know.
I don't think they specified ball speed, and I don't think the ball speeds are all the same. I think those are just the numbers for the calibration ball. I think they only specified swing speed, and only reported distance results. Likewise I don't think they picked that spin rate.
Picture this. They go out to their iron byron. Set it to 160 fps. Tee up a a calibration ball. Hit it. Record the resulting ball speed (239) and the resulting spin (3232) for calibration purposes (maybe to make sure machine is still working the same as last time.) Then do the experiment, only recording distance.
It is a hard read, but that is the best I can figure it.
David,
Frankly, I can't make much sense of anything they wrote in there but I can tell you I disagree with the below statement. Not from experience, but that seems like a hole in their case for a patent.
Regardless, there's no effort here to optimize for any ball (except potentially the Tour Edition), so for these specific launch conditions the DT was only slightly longer than the balata.
Then again, I can't see conditions that generate 21 yards of roll out of a balata and 18.6 out of a DT, can you?
EDIT: Does it comply with anyone's memory that the harder balls would roll less than the softer balls?
...
If you were hitting it substantially farther than 279 yards back then, my guess is that you were playing on extremely hard fairways or your swing speed exceeded 109 mph, or both.
...
According to this example there was only a 7 yard difference between the Balata and the Top Flite, and I am not going to argue about whether they could squeeze a few yards out of any one or all of these balls. Do you seriously believe that the test procedure was so flawed that it was understating the distance of the Top Flite by 20 or 30 or 40 yards at 109 mph swing speeds? That seems extremely unlikely to me.
...
If you don't limit swing speed then what's the point?
I don't think they specified ball speed, and I don't think the ball speeds are all the same. I think those are just the numbers for the calibration ball. I think they only specified swing speed, and only reported distance results. Likewise I don't think they picked that spin rate.
Picture this. They go out to their iron byron. Set it to 160 fps. Tee up a a calibration ball. Hit it. Record the resulting ball speed (239) and the resulting spin (3232) for calibration purposes (maybe to make sure machine is still working the same as last time.) Then do the experiment, only recording distance.
I am sure my swing speed exceeded 109 mph. I would come off the college basketball, and track seasons, go to work at a sawmill which really built up my forearms, so I was about as fit for golf as I could be during the summers. However, the additional point that I mentioned before is that I hit the ball with a 2 wood, which would be more optimal for a TopFlite than hitting it with a 9 degree driver, and less optimal for a Balata than hitting it with a 9 degree driver.
If you don't limit swing speed then what's the point?
The USGA had to remove their previous limit on swing speed for the ODS.
The point is let the ball be all it can be. ;D
The most logical approach for Spalding would be to find a speed/spin/launch combination that places the Tour Edition ahead of the soft and hard balls. I'm guessing this is what they did here.
No way to know, but if you're right about a calibrated "before test" ball why wouldn't they reference it? Instead, they identify specific launch conditions for this experiment. Why would we assume they didn't actually get those results?
Do you think launch angle and trajectory are the same thing? This is not a scientific definition, but isn't trajectory the longer flight result of launch angle and spin rate? So in this experiment, they're all launching and spinning the same but have a range of trajectories.
At best, this test is still only representative of a single golfer (read; your cornfield experiments)...a perfectly consistent single golfer.
If you launch a ball higher the DT gains more, if you launch it lower the balata loses less.
Are you suggesting that the ProV1 would have performed significantly better than the DT under the exact launch conditions used in the Tour Edition test? How much?
Also, do you think there is a difference between swing speed and club head speed?
Regarding your post 413; what are you asking?
Just go watch Tour player swing their drivers for a few minutes. You will no longer dis-believe the plain and obvious truth that they are indeed swinging faster than a "few decades ago".
All that said, if you went back to wood and balata, today's players would on average be somewhat longer IMHO due to paragraph one, as well as some form of ideal optimization of that equipment
Re swing speeds, I'm impressed that Garland and Doug were swinging at 109 mph back in the day. That was supposed to be the swing speed of "reasonably long" professional players of the day.
If 109 mph swings went with the long hitters of the day, then long hitters today are around 120 mph. That's a gain of 11 mph over a couple of decades and no doubt attributable to light club heads, shafts and grips and more aggressive swinging aided by high MOI titanium heads (and not the ball). That increase in swing speed is consistent with about 25 to 35 extra yards regardless of ball. My jury is still out on how much the club changes and resultant swing speed gains contributed to the distance gains from 1995 to 2005 vs how much the ball contributed.
... Does anybody really think this trend will stop even with further equipment controls? ...
A second approach (and I think more useful approach) is to consider how much the new technology benefited various players at different swing speeds as compared to the previous state of the art technology. Unfortunately, we don't have a clean study for this one, but if we did, we would look at how much the slow swinging golfer gained (or lost) from the new technology, compared to how much the fast swinger gained from the new technology. Take the Pro V1x, for example. My hypothesis is that a golfer with a slow club head speed (say 80 mph) wouldn't gain much of any yardage with a Pro V1x as compared to previous technology, and he/she might even lose yardage. On the other hand, a golfer with a high swing speed (say 120 mph) would gain a bunch, maybe 30 or 40 yards or more. This is what I think most golfers were trying to express when they noticed that the fast swingers seemed to "unlock" the extra distance with these new balls- they seemed to get a bigger jump as compared to the old technology. There is nothing magical about these balls, its just that they don't seem to work any better for average golfers than did the old balls.
David,
Comparing the reasonably long swing speeds used to set the ODS to a tour average swing speed today seems counterintuitive to me.
Jeff,
My contention is that Woodland was using what is, for him, the perfect driver and ball combo in today's gear but if he took the time he'd find a driver/ball/swing combo to close some of that gap. Not all, but a healthy amount.
Jim - had to go look that up, just to keep this going. Let's stick to just club head speed (and leave alone the possibility that a longer shaft might produce more mishits). But we do have to note, apparently, that a longer shaft might also weigh more than a shorter one (which might 'even things out', club head speed wise). So, interestingly, the example engineers with Cleveland Golf give is this: "The same energy that would produce a swing of about 96 miles per hour with a 45-inch driver weighing 325 grams would generate a swing speed of roughly 102 mph with a 46˝-inch driver weighing 285 grams."
Mark - i do remember that. But Nick Price's comments made me think that not all of them were following that, or at least that all 90%s are not created equal.
Peter
Interesting tweet from a friend of mine
Gary Woodland hitting on range recently
2014 Callaway BB driver 316 carry, 127 CH speed, 187 ball speed
1980's wood driver 268 carry, 114 CH speed, 168 ball speed
similar spin rate on both
ProV1 x ball, so you can probably subtract a few yards if using balata, putting him near 260 carry?
More Nicklaus types of numbers-who was a hell of an athlete as well
My contention is that Woodland was using what is, for him, the perfect driver and ball combo in today's gear but if he took the time he'd find a driver/ball/swing combo to close some of that gap. Not all, but a healthy amount.
Haven't followed this thread but re the Bryan's graphics: is the relationship of Y to X actually linear? Qualitatively I have read many times it's not, that Tour players (maybe even just the fastest swinging among that cohort) achieve a distance gain disproportionate to their swing speed differential to real golfers like you and me.
Yes / no / maybe?
Now, I have no doubt I'd have added a few mph to those numbers if instead of a 42.75" 130g shaft I had a modern lighter longer graphite shaft. Exactly how many, I have no idea. I don't see where you assume this mysterious 10% jump in swing speeds over the past few decades has come from. Do you think the longer/lighter shaft has that much effect? That seems doubtful to me. Or is this yet another attempt to claim "fitness" has anything do with with swing speed, despite all the evidence that shows the distance jumps happening only in certain distinct points in time where technology changed - PROVING that fitness has little or nothing to do with the distance gains.
David,
The wood driver was 3050ish and the modern driver was 2980ish so not real different
I suspect the launch was a bit lower with the wood, but no info
Regardless, did you notice that he lost 13 mph in swing speed? Certainly from a combination of shorter and heavier shaft. Can't imagine in this test he was artificially gearing back for accuracy. According to the estimates in your earlier post, that's over 30 yards right there.
Doug,QuoteNow, I have no doubt I'd have added a few mph to those numbers if instead of a 42.75" 130g shaft I had a modern lighter longer graphite shaft. Exactly how many, I have no idea. I don't see where you assume this mysterious 10% jump in swing speeds over the past few decades has come from. Do you think the longer/lighter shaft has that much effect? That seems doubtful to me. Or is this yet another attempt to claim "fitness" has anything do with with swing speed, despite all the evidence that shows the distance jumps happening only in certain distinct points in time where technology changed - PROVING that fitness has little or nothing to do with the distance gains.
The mysterious 10% is not mysterious at all. I was merely comparing the ODS test swing speed of 109 mph in the 1970's to the current ODS test swing speed of 120 mph. In both cases they were supposed to have been set to reflect swing speeds of reasonably long hitters. These two numbers reflect how much faster the USGA thinks players are swinging now vs thirty years ago. Take it for what it's worth.
My apologies if I insulted you by saying that your swing speed was 109 mph. Your much higher numbers are very, very impressive for that time.
Yes, I think the swing speed increase is due to improvements in the clubs primarily. Lighter heads, lighter shafts, lighter grips all lead to faster swings even given the same input. Higher MOI's have also enabled players to take harder swings with less penalized misses. I think that a 11 mph gain in swing speed is very possible. The Gary Woodland test above shows a 13 mph gain - in the same ball park.
No, I wasn't attributing it to improved fitness. I think that that is a tertiary effect, but still a small contributor. It certainly hasn't seemed to have hurt Tiger or all those that have followed his fitness regime. Gary Woodland, for instance is 3" or 4" taller than Nicklaus (Minnesota Fats) giving a longer arc. I would guess that players on tour today, on average, are taller and stronger than they were 30 years ago, but that's a whole other path to go down.
Here is a link to an interesting recent (Aug. 2011) patent application from Nike, for a ball which they claim "has a typical initial velocity at a low club head speed, but an increased initial velocity at a high club head speed."
www.google.com/patents/US20130210544
Given their comparison set (Pro V1, Nike One, Nike One D, Callaway Tour i(s)) and the description, this is supposed to be a high performance ball aimed at the high swing speed player. (Notably they didn't include the Pro V1x, perhaps because they didn't want to look bad.)
So what does "typical initial velocity at low club head speed" mean to Nike? Here are their initial velocity numbers for an 80 mph swing with a swing robot and a Nike SQ Dymo 10.5° driver. (complete specifications in the application.)
Ball ballspd spin Lnch crry total dist.
Prototype 88 2181 10.8 85 125
OneTourD 90 2139 10.9 88 128
Pro V1 88 2243 10.8 86 125
Tour(i)s 88 2377 10.6 84 123
One Tour 89 2418 10.6 88 126
For all these balls, a swing speed of 80 mph produced an initial ball speed of 88 to 90 mph, and total carry distances in the mid-80s. With a generous 40 yards of roll, the longest of the bunch is only 128 yards total. Granted, the launch angle and spin are way too low for this slow a swing, and maybe a different driver could "optimize" these and improve distance and carry a bit. But what about the ball speed? There isn't much optimization one can do with a ball speed of 88-90 mph.
This is what Nike scientists consider to be "typical initial velocity at low club head speed?" If 88-90 ball speed is really "typical" with an 80 mph swing speed, then there is no way that the technology behind these balls has improved the distance performance of slow club head swing players.
None of us have found credible evidence that that was true.
Doug,
Must be something screwy about this test...at least compared to the Trackman ideal measurements Bryan posted on reply #159.
Does anyone know the math on how much speed the club head picks up based on 2 inch longer shafts? Assuming everything else (core rotational speed) is exactly the same.
Interesting tweet from a friend of mine
Gary Woodland hitting on range recently
2014 Callaway BB driver 316 carry, 127 CH speed, 187 ball speed
1980's wood driver 268 carry, 114 CH speed, 168 ball speed
similar spin rate on both
ProV1 x ball, so you can probably subtract a few yards if using balata, putting him near 260 carry?
More Nicklaus types of numbers-who was a hell of an athlete as well
Jeff, Thanks for posting those numbers. Very interesting.
I've seen talk of "smash factor" (ball speed/club head speed) and as I understand it it is a good way of measuring/comparing the efficiency of transfer of energy from the club head to the ball. I've read that approaching 1.5 is a very efficient transfer of energy. Mr. Woodland was at 1.472 with the new driver and 1.474 with the old driver. Almost identical. As for efficient transfer of energy, he doesn't seem to have lost anything at all with the older driver. In fact he was a hair better with the old club.
That said, the carry distance with the old club wasn't nearly as proportional as the energy transfer, and seems surprisingly short with a 168 mph ball speed, doesn't it? Did he happen to mention the ball flight/launch angle and spin? I tried to duplicate Woodland's results on Bryan's Flightscope Optimizer website, and the only way I can get that short of a carry is with a really low launch and spin (9, 2100) or a really high spin (4800).
________________________________
.................................................
Added: By the way, Jim, in thinking about the old patent applications where tests were performed outside on grass, it probably makes more sense to focus on carry distances, as roll is so variable with the conditions.
...
The Woodland smash factors are a little suspect. There has been a very clear increase in COR's between wood drivers and trampoline effect titanium drivers - something like going from 0.7 to 0.83 iirc.
Two inches longer in the shaft will get you about 5.5 yards according to this study.
Going from a 120 gm shaft to a 65 gm shaft would get you 7.7 yards.
In addition, "spin" was a material factor in the 60's and 70's as balls hit with high speeds would rocket out, low, then balloon up to their apogee/apex , then fall sharply without much roll.
Here is a link to an interesting recent (Aug. 2011) patent application from Nike, for a ball which they claim "has a typical initial velocity at a low club head speed, but an increased initial velocity at a high club head speed."
www.google.com/patents/US20130210544
Given their comparison set (Pro V1, Nike One, Nike One D, Callaway Tour i(s)) and the description, this is supposed to be a high performance ball aimed at the high swing speed player. (Notably they didn't include the Pro V1x, perhaps because they didn't want to look bad.)
So what does "typical initial velocity at low club head speed" mean to Nike? Here are their initial velocity numbers for an 80 mph swing with a swing robot and a Nike SQ Dymo 10.5° driver. (complete specifications in the application.)
Ball ballspd spin Lnch crry total dist.
Prototype 88 2181 10.8 85 125
OneTourD 90 2139 10.9 88 128
Pro V1 88 2243 10.8 86 125
Tour(i)s 88 2377 10.6 84 123
One Tour 89 2418 10.6 88 126
For all these balls, a swing speed of 80 mph produced an initial ball speed of 88 to 90 mph, and total carry distances in the mid-80s. With a generous 40 yards of roll, the longest of the bunch is only 128 yards total. Granted, the launch angle and spin are way too low for this slow a swing, and maybe a different driver could "optimize" these and improve distance and carry a bit. But what about the ball speed? There isn't much optimization one can do with a ball speed of 88-90 mph.
This is what Nike scientists consider to be "typical initial velocity at low club head speed?" If 88-90 ball speed is really "typical" with an 80 mph swing speed, then there is no way that the technology behind these balls has improved the distance performance of slow club head swing players.
If this is correct, then there really IS a supralinear increase in distance at higher swing speeds. Look at the huge difference between 80 mph to 95 mph versus 80 mph to 110 mph. 3x the additional distance from 2x the additional clubhead speed!
I thought this Quintavella study had debunked that? Either that study is wrong, or these numbers are wrong. Does an 80 mph clubhead speed really produce such pitiful distance?
Table 10 shows how an exemplary ball in accordance with this disclosure has a large difference between the initial velocity under a high club head speed and the initial velocity under a low club head speed. In particular, the difference between 125 mph and 80 mph is larger than any comparative example. Accordingly, the slope of the function “initial velocity=function(club head speed)” is steep.
TABLE 10
Change in Initial Velocities between Different Club Head Speeds
Club Head Speed Δ: 95-80 110-80 125-80
Example 28 72 86
Nike One Tour D 27 69 81
Pro V1x 28 71 85
Tour i(s) 29 69 83
Nike One Tour 27 71 82
Therefore, a golf ball in accordance with this disclosure may perform well at lower swing speeds (such as those achieved by amateur golfers) by achieving an initial velocity that is substantially similar to various comparative examples. Further, a golf ball in accordance with this disclosure may also perform better than a variety of comparative examples at higher swing speeds (such as those achieved by professional golfers) by achieving an increased initial velocity. Therefore, a golf ball in accordance with this disclosure may be versatile enough to be easily used by golfers having a wide range of abilities.
Thanks, Padraig. Very interesting.
________________________________________
Bryan, Regarding your post 457, I think I'll stick with my own statement of my theory in post 440.
That said, your graph does provide very rough idea of what I am talking about here. According to your rough observations:
-- At around an 80 mph swing speed there doesn't appear to be a distance difference between the Pro V1x and the Balata.
-- At around 103 mph there appears to be about a 7 yards difference.
-- At around 110 mph the difference appears to be about 10 yards difference.
This suggests that the faster swingers, and not slower swingers, have benefited more from the new technology, does it not?
........................................................
Here's some testing I did
http://0to300golf.blogspot.ie/2012/12/titanium-versus-persimmon.html
http://0to300golf.blogspot.ie/2013/03/titleist-tour-balata-90-v-titleist-pro.html
http://0to300golf.blogspot.ie/2013/03/persimmon-balata-v-titanium-pro-v1x.html
Didn't get the same differences as Gary Woodland. The ball made the biggest difference for me.
Bryan, to what are you referring when you say that as 13 mph is inline with other examples we've found? I was thinking around 7 mph was more in line with the rest of what we've found. Padraig and Jeff reported 6 to 8 mph. Here is another Andrew Rice experiment where he reports 7 mph. http://www.andrewricegolf.com/2012/10/which-driver-shaft-length/ What are the other examples of 13?
(Also keep in mind that an increase at the top end doesn't necessarily translate to the same increase at the bottom end, especially if we consider the yardage benefit. Average golfers are much less likely to convert lighter and longer clubs into longer distances than top golfers. Again, we see the technological benefits accruing mostly at the top.)
And, according to the Quintavalla study, I don't think the 3 yards rule of thumb is applicable for the extremely high swing speeds we are considering. According to Quintavalla returns are diminishing fairly rapidly with each increased mph above 110 mph. From 110-120 the average return is less than 110-120 the return is less than 2.5, and the report suggests that the bulk of the loss is at the high end, with even greater decline above 120 mph. In Woodland's case, he is well above the range where a three yard gain per mph applies, so his total gain attributable to swing speed would be much less than 36 yards, wouldn't it?
Also, in Woodland's case, you suggest that the "smash factor" is suspect. If the "smash factor" is suspect then either the swing speed or ball speed is wrong, which would seem to throw all the rest of the discussion of his numbers into question.
As for COR, I think they were close to .78. So the difference wouldn't be as great as you suggest.Two inches longer in the shaft will get you about 5.5 yards according to this study.
Going from a 120 gm shaft to a 65 gm shaft would get you 7.7 yards.
Thanks for the link.
I understand what you are trying to say when you talk about what these changes to weight and length "will get you." But these are they kinds of "all-else-being-equal" tradeoffs that very rarely if ever apply to average golfers. I think it is a pretty safe bet to say that most average golfers would be better off distance-wise with 44 inch drivers than 46 inch drivers, and that any gains in swing speed would be more than offset by increasingly poor ball striking.
Bryan,
I'd be cautious when reviewing swing studies from the 60's and 70's as I don't think there was a keen awareness of launch angles, which could have an impact on carry and overall distance.
I agree with the lack of awareness. Do you have some specific studies from the 60's and 70's you're referring to? I'd like to see them.
In addition, "spin" was a material factor in the 60's and 70's as balls hit with high speeds would rocket out, low, then balloon up to their apogee/apex , then fall sharply without much roll.
Strangely, people like Padraig, who are trying the old equipment now are not getting the super spin out of the Balatas that you remember. Why is that? I recall the balloon ball shots. I didn't get that shot personally. Maybe I didn't have the downward angle of attack with a high dynamic launch angle that would cause it. I suspect if players of the time had the understanding of launch condtions and ball flight that we have now, those kind of shots could have been avoided. From current experience hitting balatas, super high spin rates off the driver are not inherent in the ball.
Ball flight in the 60's and 70's was significantly different from today, especially with off center hits and deviant swings.
For some, but perhaps not for all. Did you have it? I know Tom Paul had it. I didn't. I don't think any of us knew any better than to think it was a good thing or the way things were.
Comparing the PGA and LPGA stats sheds some light: a reasonably wide range of player strength:
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v135/paulturner/PGA90LPGA10_zps69c0ce1e.png)
2013 PGA Top 10%= 299yds
2013 LPGA Bottom 10% = 236yds
About 7 yards extra gain for the strongest 10% PGA vs weakest 10% LPGA
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v135/paulturner/LPGA90PGA10_zps22ba6917.png)
2013 PGA Bottom 10% = 277yds
2013 LPGA Top 10% = 259yds
About 4 yds extra gain for the weakest 10% PGA vs strongest 10% LPGA
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v135/paulturner/LPGA90LPGA10_zpsb082829c.png)
2013 LPGA Top 10% = 259yds
2013 LPGA Bottom 10% = 236yds
About 3 yds extra gain for the strongest 10% LPGA vs weakest 10% LPGA
And comparing within the PGA...no difference between the top and bottom deciles. The 2006 USGA study showed this in a different way.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v135/paulturner/PGA90PGA10_zps487af317.png)
So overall about 7 yards over that time frame and for the strength range of weakest 10% LPGA to strongest 10% PGA
I think the question whether the "average" player has gained less than a tour pro is much more complex since the average player mishits so much.
You'd need to study the scatter pattern of many shots with old and new tech, which this book did pretty well:
http://www.amazon.com/Clubs-Really-Optimize-Their-Design/dp/0967762502
Yes, the gain tails off in the upper swing speed range. When Mucci's long hitting high schoolers start swinging at 130 or 140 mph what do you suppose the gain will be - 1 yard per mph? Is there a limit where increasing swing speed nets no gain?
Bryan,
I'd be cautious when reviewing swing studies from the 60's and 70's as I don't think there was a keen awareness of launch angles, which could have an impact on carry and overall distance.
I agree with the lack of awareness. Do you have some specific studies from the 60's and 70's you're referring to? I'd like to see them.
In addition, "spin" was a material factor in the 60's and 70's as balls hit with high speeds would rocket out, low, then balloon up to their apogee/apex , then fall sharply without much roll.
Strangely, people like Padraig, who are trying the old equipment now are not getting the super spin out of the Balatas that you remember. Why is that?
Because he's teeing the ball up as modern players do, high, and hitting it on the upswing as modern golfers do.
That's not the swing mechanics employed in the 60's, that's why the ball flight differed.
I recall the balloon ball shots. I didn't get that shot personally. Maybe I didn't have the downward angle of attack with a high dynamic launch angle that would cause it. I suspect if players of the time had the understanding of launch condtions and ball flight that we have now, those kind of shots could have been avoided. From current experience hitting balatas, super high spin rates off the driver are not inherent in the ball.[/size]
Bryan,
The answer lies in the way the ball was teed up in the 60's.
It was teed low, with the optimum set up having the ball's equator being even with the top of the clubhead.
This affected the launch angle dramatically because the full clubhead couldn't get "under" the ball to "launch" it, nor was that the intent.
I don't think any golfers deliberately hit the ball with the intent of launching it like a howitzer, as is routinely done today, unless there was a good wind at your back.
In Frank Hannigan's 1981 comments to me, when we were discussing driving distance in Atlanta, and it's advantages, he mentioned that his observations were that the really long golfers hit the ball high.
This was before anyone was measuring or even aware of launch angles.
The swing plane, based on the way the ball was teed up, greatly influenced ball flight
Ball flight in the 60's and 70's was significantly different from today, especially with off center hits and deviant swings.
For some, but perhaps not for all. Did you have it?
Yes, and so did my dad, who was an exceptional golfer.
I know Tom Paul had it. I didn't. I don't think any of us knew any better than to think it was a good thing or the way things were.[/size]
...
Because he's teeing the ball up as modern players do, high, and hitting it on the upswing as modern golfers do.
That's not the swing mechanics employed in the 60's, that's why the ball flight differed.
...
...
Because he's teeing the ball up as modern players do, high, and hitting it on the upswing as modern golfers do.
That's not the swing mechanics employed in the 60's, that's why the ball flight differed.
...
To say the golfers in the 60's were not teeing it high and hitting it on the upswing is just plain wrong. This is something that was probably learned very early in the history of the game and has been done for a long long time.
There were no professional golf teachers in the rural area where I learned to play. I learned from Tommy Armour's book. It says "The drive is hit slightly on the upswing. The irons must be hit on the downswing." It was published in 1953.
Are you suggesting that the ProV1 would have performed significantly better than the DT under the exact launch conditions used in the Tour Edition test? How much?
Yes. Between 20 and 30 yards at 3232 spin and 239 fps initial velocity. (More if we don't artificially lock in the spin rate for either.)
Here's some testing I did
http://0to300golf.blogspot.ie/2012/12/titanium-versus-persimmon.html
http://0to300golf.blogspot.ie/2013/03/titleist-tour-balata-90-v-titleist-pro.html
http://0to300golf.blogspot.ie/2013/03/persimmon-balata-v-titanium-pro-v1x.html
Didn't get the same differences as Gary Woodland. The ball made the biggest difference for me.
Good stuff Padraig.
Two considerations that might have effected the result. The TP club was shafted with graphite which makes it considerably lighter than the old steel shafts. With a steel shaft I expect your swing speed would have been a little slower. Secondly the Balatas are 12 years old and probably have lost some of their COR. No idea how much. Did you happen to weigh them on a gram scale. I'm curious if they have dried out and lost weight.
I assume that your titanium driver and current swing is more or less optimized for the ProV1(x) while that would be less true for the TP/Balata combination.
Your conclusion that it is mainly the ball (proV1x) maybe could be more accurately stated as 2/3 ball and 1/3 club for the ProV1x and 50/50 for the ProV1, if I read your numbers correctly.
The results are enlightening re some Balata myths. They don't seem to spin excessively more. They launch low but don't balloon to great heights. They roll out longer, not shorter, than ProV1(x)s. And, they don't impart excessive side spin (indeed, in your test they were more accurate even with the persimmon driver). Surprises me.
Changes in reducing of spin? Seems unlikely, but may be a function of dimples? One of the spin reports in the tread noted that although the balata spin rates were close to the ProV, it curved sideways in a more pronounced manner. Is perhaps making shallower dimples having a significant effect? This seems unlikely to me, because I doubt TopFlites and Titlesit balatas had significantly different dimples, but they sure moved differently in the air, which I have always attributed to the spin rates.
Because he's teeing the ball up as modern players do, high, and hitting it on the upswing as modern golfers do.
That's not the swing mechanics employed in the 60's, that's why the ball flight differed.[/color][/color]
A lot of the time this relationship stays the same whether a player hits up or down on the ball, giving the same spin e.g an attack angle of -3 with a dynamic loft of 12 gives a spin loft of 15 and an attack angle of +2 with a dynamic loft of 17 also gives a spin loft of 15. The first shot just launches lower then the second but they both have the same spin.
...
Because he's teeing the ball up as modern players do, high, and hitting it on the upswing as modern golfers do.
That's not the swing mechanics employed in the 60's, that's why the ball flight differed.
...
To say the golfers in the 60's were not teeing it high and hitting it on the upswing is just plain wrong.
It's NOT wrong, it's fact.
Were you playing golf in 1960 ?
This is something that was probably learned very early in the history of the game and has been done for a long long time.
You don't know what you're talking about.
What year were you born and in what year did you begin playing golf ?
There were no professional golf teachers in the rural area where I learned to play.
I learned from Tommy Armour's book. It says "The drive is hit slightly on the upswing.
The irons must be hit on the downswing." It was published in 1953.
What about the word, "slightly" don't you understand ?
My dad was friendly with and took lessons from Tommy Armour and Tommy Armour NEVER taught teeing the ball up high and "launching" it.
I did consider that the graphite shaft lightened the overall weight of the Tony Penna persimmon and that a steel shaft would have lowered the swing speed even more. But that was the only persimmon I had at the time. Also since mass is also a component of momentum, swinging a heavier club at slightly lower speeds doesn't necessarily mean a loss of overall distance.
Yes, it does, it's indisputable.
Club "head"speed determines distance
The balatas were stored in a dark drawer and shouldn't have lost too much weight. Even if they did this would mean a lesser differential in distance between the two balls.
What was the brand, year and compression ?
One or multi piece ?
I was also surprised that the balatas didn't balloon more, remembering the initial days of balata and titanium when the balloon ball was prevalent.
Balata balls didn't remain static, hence the outcome could have been influenced by the type of Balata ball used
As an aside Paul Hurrion of Quintic sports has computer software that can measure swing speed from video.
He measured a speed of a driver swing of Jack Nicklaus from a video from the 60s at 125mph. That is some speed for a persimmon driver!!
I would look at look at that claim with enlightened suspicion.
QuoteAre you suggesting that the ProV1 would have performed significantly better than the DT under the exact launch conditions used in the Tour Edition test? How much?
Yes. Between 20 and 30 yards at 3232 spin and 239 fps initial velocity. (More if we don't artificially lock in the spin rate for either.)
I meant to grab this earlier...do you have something that supports this?
...
So was there a difference between balatas and modern balls in this regard? Titleist balatas had a liquid center, surrounded by a lot of rubber windings. I don't know the density of the windings compared to the overall average density of the ball, but it is probably not as dense as solid rubber. The liquid center was almost certainly less dense than the overall ball (unless it used a heavy liquid like oil) That would mean the ball was probably lighter in the center and heavier in the cover, which would transfer less spin from impact, but lose less spin during flight. I have no idea of the density of the various layers in a modern ball, but it is reasonable to assume that they are not of identical density. Is it denser in the center or less dense in the center? I have no idea. Maybe those digging into the patents saw something about the densities of the different layers?
...
With the same 1990 metal wood with a COR of .78...yes, or very close to it.
I read a link that I'll connect shortly that attributes 4.2 yards per .01 increase in COR from .78 to .83 per the1998 change.
...
So maybe controlling spin via the rules is more subtle. Rather than dealing solely with initial spin rate, you have to deal with how quickly the ball loses spin. i.e. a drive hit with an initial spin rate of x can lose a maximum of y rpm per distance or time. It isn't that you don't want balls spinning at 3000 rpm when hit with the driver, it is that you want it carrying more of that spin throughout the drive, rather than quickly shedding it.
Jim,
What does "Comparing when you were playing those stainless steel drivers back some years ago and now the new titanium spring-faced drivers, you have gained 21 yards of distance- assuming a driver swing speed of 100 m.p.h. For every increase in C.O.R you gain 4.2 yards. " mean?
EDIT: I just saw your other post where you apparently concluded that an increase in C.O.R. mean a .01 increase.
I remember the press when the COR limit was set at .83. The press was saying this would only give professional golfers 5 or 6 yards, and the rest of us basically nothing, because we couldn't hit the ball on the sweet spot often enough to matter.
A lot of the time this relationship stays the same whether a player hits up or down on the ball, giving the same spin e.g an attack angle of -3 with a dynamic loft of 12 gives a spin loft of 15 and an attack angle of +2 with a dynamic loft of 17 also gives a spin loft of 15. The first shot just launches lower then the second but they both have the same spin.
Padraig,
I think I have a reasonable sense for these factors around spin and while I can understand what you say above..."a lot of the time" seems more like something that could happen in a vacuum as opposed to a real golfer hitting a real golf ball.
If you changed your attack angle by 5*, you're almost certainly going to affect your spin loft aren't you?
I did consider that the graphite shaft lightened the overall weight of the Tony Penna persimmon and that a steel shaft would have lowered the swing speed even more. But that was the only persimmon I had at the time. Also since mass is also a component of momentum, swinging a heavier club at slightly lower speeds doesn't necessarily mean a loss of overall distance.
Yes, it does, it's indisputable.
Club "head"speed determines distance
The balatas were stored in a dark drawer and shouldn't have lost too much weight. Even if they did this would mean a lesser differential in distance between the two balls.
What was the brand, year and compression ?
One or multi piece ?
I was also surprised that the balatas didn't balloon more, remembering the initial days of balata and titanium when the balloon ball was prevalent.
Balata balls didn't remain static, hence the outcome could have been influenced by the type of Balata ball used
As an aside Paul Hurrion of Quintic sports has computer software that can measure swing speed from video.
He measured a speed of a driver swing of Jack Nicklaus from a video from the 60s at 125mph. That is some speed for a persimmon driver!!
I would look at look at that claim with enlightened suspicion.
...
..............................................
...
........................................................
...................................................
I admit I'm confused by the numbers being shown for the spin rate of balata on persimmon. This does not jive with what I observe with my own drives then and now, especially into a strong wind. Is it possible that balata balls decreased rpms more slowly than modern balls throughout the ball flight, due to ball construction or aerodynamics? Perhaps the initial rpms were similar but the rpms 100 yards off the clubface diverged?
Here's some testing I did
http://0to300golf.blogspot.ie/2012/12/titanium-versus-persimmon.html
http://0to300golf.blogspot.ie/2013/03/titleist-tour-balata-90-v-titleist-pro.html
http://0to300golf.blogspot.ie/2013/03/persimmon-balata-v-titanium-pro-v1x.html
Didn't get the same differences as Gary Woodland. The ball made the biggest difference for me.
........................................................
Bryan
I did consider that the graphite shaft lightened the overall weight of the Tony Penna persimmon and that a steel shaft would have lowered the swing speed even more. But that was the only persimmon I had at the time. Also since mass is also a component of momentum, swinging a heavier club at slightly lower speeds doesn't necessarily mean a loss of overall distance.
...............................................
As an aside Paul Hurrion of Quintic sports has computer software that can measure swing speed from video. He measured a speed of a driver swing of Jack Nicklaus from a video from the 60s at 125mph. That is some speed for a persimmon driver!!
Changes in reducing of spin? Seems unlikely, but may be a function of dimples? One of the spin reports in the tread noted that although the balata spin rates were close to the ProV, it curved sideways in a more pronounced manner. Is perhaps making shallower dimples having a significant effect? This seems unlikely to me, because I doubt TopFlites and Titlesit balatas had significantly different dimples, but they sure moved differently in the air, which I have always attributed to the spin rates.
................................................
So maybe controlling spin via the rules is more subtle. Rather than dealing solely with initial spin rate, you have to deal with how quickly the ball loses spin. i.e. a drive hit with an initial spin rate of x can lose a maximum of y rpm per distance or time. It isn't that you don't want balls spinning at 3000 rpm when hit with the driver, it is that you want it carrying more of that spin throughout the drive, rather than quickly shedding it.
Bryan, regarding the Nike patent application, a the smash factor was very low at the low end and the high end, but in line at 110 mph swing speed, which is strange. Do you suppose the Nike driver they used is crap at low speeds and very high speeds, but okay at 110?
If they were using a robot then it likely had to do with the driver or maybe more likely wit the test setup. Otherwise, I have no idea. It makes the results questionable in my mind.
As for the mention of the ProV1 in the example, but then the ProV1x in the conclusion, I think both are referring to the same ball as the numbers are the same. Don't know which ball.
Strange they would make such a fundamental error in a patent application. I would have thought the lawyers would have caught it.
As for your chart comparing Quintavalla with the Nike experiment, obviously your curve is wrong for the Nike example, as I don't think it was losing distance at the top end. More importantly,based on Quintavalla I think we have been assuming a straight line slope for balls below 90, but I don't think we should be. We don't know what happens below 90 mph with those balls. (If you try to back all the way down to zero mph, you can see that it can't be linear all the way down.) It could be that there is a big drop from 90 to 80 like in the Nike example, only not as severe. We just don't know, so I am not sure we should be making assumptions.
No, we don't know what happens down below 90 in the Quintavalla study. Not sure it's relevant for male golfers. If you can get a better curve through the Nike data points, feel free.
As for Rice's 46 yards difference, I am not as skeptical as you are. Rice's numbers for the Balata are somewhat in line with what I'd expect from various old patent applications. Maybe a bit low, but not crazy low. And his ProV1x numbers are in line with what I'd expect from someone with a ProV1x at around 110 mph. So maybe 46 yards is high, but I am not skeptical of the fact that he hit the ProV1 and ProV1x substantially farther than the Balata.
The Balata appears to have fallen out of the sky despite similar launch conditions. Why would that be? The V1x you use for the 46 yards was an anecdote at the end with no data to support it. I remain skeptical. Certainly nobody on the PGA Tour achieved anything close to that gain on a consistent basis.
Looking at the chart, you friend hit the Balata somewhere in the high 270's but his ball speed was around 7 mph higher, was it not? If so, then the two numbers for the Balata are comparable, are they not?
Not sure what you're asking.
So Padraig,
Would you say that dynamic loft is simply the way the club head comes into the ball when a particular player swings it? The same player swinging at pretty much the same speed will always make the shaft flex the same way resulting in a very similar face position at impact?
I did consider that the graphite shaft lightened the overall weight of the Tony Penna persimmon and that a steel shaft would have lowered the swing speed even more. But that was the only persimmon I had at the time. Also since mass is also a component of momentum, swinging a heavier club at slightly lower speeds doesn't necessarily mean a loss of overall distance.
Yes, it does, it's indisputable.
Club "head"speed determines distance
The balatas were stored in a dark drawer and shouldn't have lost too much weight. Even if they did this would mean a lesser differential in distance between the two balls.
What was the brand, year and compression ?
One or multi piece ?
I was also surprised that the balatas didn't balloon more, remembering the initial days of balata and titanium when the balloon ball was prevalent.
Balata balls didn't remain static, hence the outcome could have been influenced by the type of Balata ball used
As an aside Paul Hurrion of Quintic sports has computer software that can measure swing speed from video.
He measured a speed of a driver swing of Jack Nicklaus from a video from the 60s at 125mph. That is some speed for a persimmon driver!!
I would look at look at that claim with enlightened suspicion.
Pat
Are you saying that two clubs swung with the same speed, where one is lighter then the other by 20% will lead to the same distance?
The balls were Titleist Tour Balata 90 from 2000.
Paul Hurrion is a thorough researcher, doesn't make claims without evidence. As a comparison the longest hitter in our club in the 30's, 40's and 50's was a golfer called Jimmy Bruen. He drove the first hole approx 370 yards slightly uphill on quite a number of occasions back then. Now the two longest hitters in the club both who can achieve 128mph clubhead speed each have only driven it once in the past few years. I think it can be reasonable to say that Jimmy Bruen had club head speeds in the 120's range. Why not Nicklaus as well?
Changes in reducing of spin? Seems unlikely, but may be a function of dimples? One of the spin reports in the tread noted that although the balata spin rates were close to the ProV, it curved sideways in a more pronounced manner. Is perhaps making shallower dimples having a significant effect? This seems unlikely to me, because I doubt TopFlites and Titlesit balatas had significantly different dimples, but they sure moved differently in the air, which I have always attributed to the spin rates.
................................................
So maybe controlling spin via the rules is more subtle. Rather than dealing solely with initial spin rate, you have to deal with how quickly the ball loses spin. i.e. a drive hit with an initial spin rate of x can lose a maximum of y rpm per distance or time. It isn't that you don't want balls spinning at 3000 rpm when hit with the driver, it is that you want it carrying more of that spin throughout the drive, rather than quickly shedding it.
Trying to regulate and control distance in this manner seems impossibly complex to me. Why not just regulate the COR or weight or size, all much simpler to regulate and control. Spin really isn't all that important.
Trying to regulate and control distance in this manner seems impossibly complex to me. Why not just regulate the COR or weight or size, all much simpler to regulate and control. Spin really isn't all that important.
David,
Nobody has actually taken the position of "blame the clubs...". It's not been a failed strategy, it's simply not been a strategy.
...
As for what type of changes to make. If it is too difficult for the USGA to measure decay rate of spin that may not be a suitable method. I was just throwing that out there as something that might directly attack the problem, but it may not be so easy to implement. There might be other ways to accomplish something somewhat similar. One of the things I've advocated for some time was that balls could only have a cover and a core, there couldn't be multiple layers that attempt to change the spin characteristics between shorter and longer shots. I wonder how the spin decay of a ball that's of pretty much uniform density compares to the modern ball? If the modern ball is heavier on the inside, as I suspect it may be, that simple rule may go a long way towards addressing the issues. But I have no data to back this up at this time, it is just a "hunch". I wish I could see some data on the density of the various layers in the Pro V1 and especially V1x (since it has a cover and three inner layers, I suspect it is gaming things more than the V1 and that accounts for its significant distance benefit at very high swing speeds)
I will say that since we've dug into the technical details far more deeply than any such thread in the past (at least that I've been involved in) I wish the USGA would be more forthcoming in what they've learned. They've clearly studied this, and probably have some incredible data, but they're keeping it to themselves (or maybe sharing it only with equipment makers) Why is that? I think they should make their data public and allow more informed debate.
If driving distance had remained static for the last 30 years, I totally agree with those who say that classic courses would still see a lot of tinkering. It has always happened in the past, whether or not distance was increasing. However, without equipment-related distance gains I don't think such tinkering would have included lengthening holes, moving bunkers around to better challenge longer hitters, etc.
Doug,
Agreed, "tinkering" was going on before the quantum leap in distance.
Maybe someone like Patrick who is "in the know" about such things can comment on this next question - when classic clubs undertake changes is the initial motivation that begins the process primarily to add length/challenge, or were these projects destined to happen anyway because they started with "let's move this greenside bunker on #14 and move the fairway on #5 10 yards to the left"?
There's no one answer.
Different clubs are motivated to make changes for a great variety of reasons.
Many have been a reaction to increased length for decades.
But, others have a very diverse genesis.
It runs the gamut from the wife of a President objecting to a feature to members drafting a petition for an unpopular feature.
Sometimes a PGA/Professional, exceptional golfer or guest architect makes a suggestion and that sets off the quest for change.
Other times it's a "copy cat" issue, where members see what another club has done.
Other than reacting to distance, there's no set pattern that's responsible for "tweaking"
I guess I wouldn't be terribly surprised if this is a "Pandora's Box" sort of situation - once the leadership decides to make changes to increase length/challenge, they open the door to other changes in a quid pro quo horse-trading scenario if the leadership has multiple factions.
My overriding concern has always been the "domino" effect, where one change begets others.
Politics is often responsible.
Faction "A" gets in and makes changes.
Then, ,Faction "B" gets in and either undoes the changes, makes changes of their own, or a combination of both.
I tend to resist change, even if it is for the better, because of the precedent it sets
David,
Nobody has actually taken the position of "blame the clubs...". It's not been a failed strategy, it's simply not been a strategy.
Ever hear of Geoff Shackleford?
David,
Unless I'm mistaken, this conversation is about equipment and equipment regulations. The reason it's a worthwhile discussion is that people think great architecture is being ruined or the game is becoming too big which leads to too expensive and time consuming for people to play. Some people think both are major issues. I agree with both of those concerns but disagree with your single minded approach of trying to artificially take yardage away from Dustin Johnson, and his ilk, to save the game. You're misguided.
You brought Shackelford into this, I didn't. Happy to let you take him out of it. Which book should I read?
One other are often mentioned is that courses are becoming "obsolete" and I disagree with that...see my questions to Pat M about the number of people breaking par at his course.
...but disagree with your single minded approach of trying to artificially take yardage away from Dustin Johnson, and his ilk...
If nothing else, this thread has proven to me that what you've said there is clearly not true.
Garland,
If nothing else, this thread has proven to me that what you've said there is clearly not true.
Longer, lighter shafts with hotter club faces enable everyone to increase their Miriam ball speed. Optimization has enabled everyone to figure out how to best utilize that ball speed. These are undeniable physical facts.
...
This is absolutely not true. Longer, lighter shafts simply make the average player hit it worse than he did before. The average player knows that optimization only optimizes the shots he hits at least near the screws, so it is for all intents and purposes absolutely worthless to him.
These are undeniable facts.
This is absolutely not true. Longer, lighter shafts simply make the average player hit it worse than he did before. The average player knows that optimization only optimizes the shots he hits at least near the screws, so it is for all intents and purposes absolutely worthless to him.
These are undeniable facts.
"Undeniable" because a) Tom Wishon wrote it in a book you bought and b) you happen to personally prefer short drivers.
I own a Macgregor persimmon driver from 1951. Dynamic steel shaft, still with the original grips. Pretty much immaculate condition.
I own a 2013 Ping G25 driver and 4-wood. Stock graphite shaft.
Does the new driver hit it longer? Yep. Higher? Yep. Straighter? Oh hell yes. Better result on a bad swing? You bet. Easier to swing 14 times a round without feeling like I'm trying to swing a sledgehammer? Of course.
I'm 53 years old, six feet, 220 pounds, play golf at weekends and my handicap index is 16.5 which I believe is almost the very definition of an average golfer. The newer equipment is clearly, obviously and in every way possible an advantage to my game.
And don't even get me started on the 1951 blades versus my Ping irons...
In 1996 I had been playing golf two years, had never broke 100, did not own a driver per se and was completely SOL if faced with a forced carry of 120 yards. So I can't offer any meaningful answer to that question.
I do have a 90's vintage first generation Titleist PT driver. Stainless steel with graphite shaft. It is lighter and easier to swing than the persimmon and gets the ball a touch higher. Unlike the the persimmon I can not turn it over for a running draw. Just slices, every time. Brutal.
In 1996 I had been playing golf two years, had never broke 100, did not own a driver per se and was completely SOL if faced with a forced carry of 120 yards. So I can't offer any meaningful answer to that question.
I do have a 90's vintage first generation Titleist PT driver. Stainless steel with graphite shaft. It is lighter and easier to swing than the persimmon and gets the ball a touch higher. Unlike the the persimmon I can not turn it over for a running draw. Just slices, every time. Brutal.
I'm confused. What driver are you using now? And, what driver enables you to do the 120 yard carry? And, are you wanting a slice, or a running draw? And, which carries farther in the air, the slice or the running draw?
...
But 20 years ago I did not have the option of a "Tour" ball that was playable by slow-swinging amateurs,...
Brent,
Your numbers sound awful high to me, but even if we accept them they pale in comparison to the gain experienced by elite players.
...
David,
What do you think about the fact that I'm no longer than 15 or 20 years ago?
[
Pat
Are you saying that two clubs swung with the same speed, where one is lighter then the other by 20% will lead to the same distance?
Padraig,
Let us know which persimmon driver weighed 20 % less than the others ?
Or 15 %
Or even 10 %
I played with just about every brand of driver made in the 50's, 60's and 70's and don't ever recall their being a detectible difference in club head weight, with the possible exception of the H&B Power Bilt Shallow Faced driver.
But, to your question, if we're talking about Persimmon woods, with one being lighter than the other, but, both swung at the same speed, throughout the entire swing, they'll both go the same approximate distance
The balls were Titleist Tour Balata 90 from 2000.
By then balls had already come a long way.
I would have liked to have seen what would have happened with balls from 1960, 1970, 1980 and 1990.
I think you'd find a considerable difference
Paul Hurrion is a thorough researcher, doesn't make claims without evidence. As a comparison the longest hitter in our club in the 30's, 40's and 50's was a golfer called Jimmy Bruen. He drove the first hole approx 370 yards slightly uphill on quite a number of occasions back then. Now the two longest hitters in the club both who can achieve 128mph clubhead speed each have only driven it once in the past few years. I think it can be reasonable to say that Jimmy Bruen had club head speeds in the 120's range. Why not Nicklaus as well?
How come I never read about Jimmy Bruen ?
I was friendly with Evan (Big Cat) Williams who was a fairly long hitter.
I'm pretty sure that he was longer than Nicklaus.
Evan was 6'5", a good athlete, a former basketball player.
He was in great condition and very strong.
He used a longer driver that was D-6.
Most of us who tried to swing his driver couldn't attain the speeds he attained, because the club was too heavy for us.
In addition, he used an X-Shaft, which didn't reward those of lessor strength
Driving a green is irrelevant if you don't know the conditions.
Firm, fast, downwind.
In the late 60's I played with fellows who hit the ball a long way, but, they hit sweeping hooks that ran forever due to conditions.
I drove 360 yard greens, but, under incredibly favorable conditions.
CARRY is the critical factor not ground distance.
Is it not eye opening to you that half (or less) of the Titleist guys on Tour switched to the X?
In your chart above, how much yardage do you think it's fair to attribute to optimization? It's greater than 0, right?
My recollection is that there were two discontinuous jumps in tour driving distance, in 2001, and in 2003. The jump in 2001 was attributed to the massive adoption of new ball technology. The jump in 2003 was attributed to the coming of age of technical equipment that allowed the players to find the right set up to fully take advantage of the new ball technology.
My recollection is that choosing a ProV1 vs a ProV1x was a primarily matter of taste on short game performance. However, it did allow a few players to get extra distance if that fit their tastes.
... You think the old balls flew just as far as the new balls, but where is your study backing that up? Where are the patent applications indicating that the Top Flite carried over 276 yards with 109 mph swing speed? Where are the applications indicating the balls had a total distance of over 300 yards at a 109 mph swing? I've looked at dozens of patent applications trying to find such examples and haven't found anything close. If anything, the example I posted is on the high end of distances.
If you come up with anything I'd be glad to consider it. But as it is, it seems that this legend that a 1980's era Top Flite flew just as far as a 2013 Pro V1x is unsupported.
David,
All I can say is that the Top Flites flew tremendous distances when I was 20-21. I have continually gotten shorter off the tee ever since. ;) Even the ProV1, when introduced 30 years later was significantly shorter than the old Top Flites. ;)
What is your evidence that the technological advancements have lead to similar distance increases on a well struck drive hit by a golfer swinging at 80-85 mph as compared to a well struck drive hit by an elite player swinging at 120-125 mph?
I know you're holding out hope that the old Rock Flite's didn't go any further than a balata, but you're alone on that island.
David,
All I can say is that the Top Flites flew tremendous distances when I was 20-21. I have continually gotten shorter off the tee ever since. ;) Even the ProV1, when introduced 30 years later was significantly shorter than the old Top Flites. ;)
How far were you carrying them, and how far did you carry the V1/V1x in the early half of this decade?
Are you claiming that 70s(?) Top Flite was the equal of the Pro V1 in 2001? Or the V1x in 2003? Or today's V1/V1x? ...
Garland, when Frank Thomas came up with the original ODS test, he first experimented with various available balls trying to see how far they flew when hit at the swing speed of a reasonably long professional with equipment that was standard at that time. While "optimization" hadn't really taken off at that time, I think it fair to say that this was his best effort to discover maximum distances under normal conditions at that particular swing speed. I don't know if it was realistic at that point in time to launch balls (even hard, low spin balls) at 19 degrees without sacrificing ball speed and distance. What would they have used, a four wood?
As for Geoff's statement about what testers "knew" about 19 degree launch angles, I don't know the time frame to which he referred, the equipment available at the time, or the factual basis of the statement.
If the old Top Flites flew as far as the longest modern balls under similar launch conditions, I'd like to see proof. From what I can gather from old patent applications, Frank Thomas's statements, and other sources, this notion is more myth than fact.
"A Guideline: Optimum Driver Launch Conditions for Maximum Distance*
Driver Launch Conditions
Head Speed: Approximate Launch Conditions
120 mph: 12 degrees and 2,200 rpm
100 mph: 13 degrees and 2,400 rpm"
The time frame that testers "knew" you could optimize launch angle for Rock Flites and get extreme distance would have been before the one ball condition rule was made. Geoff's book says it was a bandaid to prevent players from playing Rock Flites on par 5s and balatas on par 3s.
Usually I find you to be quite logical David. However, please explain to me how a Pro V1x when launched with optimal spin and optimal angle can exceed the distance a hard Top Flite has when launched with optimal spin and optimal angle. Both will have the same ball speed as they will both sit just within the initial velocity requirement.
Other than cost, there's no reason a high handicap wouldn't benefit from the new balls as compared to the current "Rock Flites".
Let me try to piece together what would have to happen for Quintavalla's study to be as worthless as you claim...
Usually I find you to be quite logical David. However, please explain to me how a Pro V1x when launched with optimal spin and optimal angle can exceed the distance a hard Top Flite has when launched with optimal spin and optimal angle. Both will have the same ball speed as they will both sit just within the initial velocity requirement.
How come I never read about Jimmy Bruen ?
Looking at the tour data: the Pro Vi breed of golf ball is about 8-10 yards longer than the balata/wound ball, so comparable to the difference between balata and Top Flite in the study (for that range of swing speeds at least).
David,
No, I don't think the numbers can be reasonably scaled up for a driver, but I thought someone else might want to try it.
David,
No, I don't think the numbers can be reasonably scaled up for a driver, but I thought someone else might want to try it.
Bryan, had you stopped there, we'd be in agreement. But then you go on to say that you can't see any reason why the differences with a seven iron numbers wouldn't hold true with drivers. This makes no sense to me given that you agree that the numbers cannot be reasonable scaled up for drivers. The reason we cannot conclude the numbers would hold true with a driver are the same as why the numbers cannot be scaled up.
By scaled up I meant that we couldn't say the driver difference between the Tour Balata and the Topflites would be precisely 10 yards when the 7 iron difference was measured at 5.3 yards. I am of the opinion that the relative differences shown for the 7 iron would hold true for the driver. In this case, the 7 iron distances of the ProV1 and the Topflites are about the same. I expect that that would have held true for the driver as well. I don't think tere is some mysterious force that is going to skew the results with the driver compared o the 7 iron. You seem to think otherwise, and that's fine.
The balls don't necessarily behave the same with a seven iron as they do with a driver, which was the whole point of the new balls, wasn't it?
I'm not sure what you mean by "behave the same". The ProV1 was designed to have a Topflite-type COR core and a cover that didn't cut and provided spin for wedges. There is no reason to think that the ProV1 would "behave" differently than a TopFlite off a driver other than likely have somewhat more spin. As discussed above, spin within reason off the driver is not all that significant to driver distance. Even Garland is now a believer.
Looking again at the numbers, I don't see how you could possibly scale up, which is what you are trying to do with your statement about drivers whether you acknowledge it or not.
My definition of scaling up was to try to put numbers on it. I believe that if the ProV1 and Topflite went similar distances with a 7 iron they would go similar distances with a driver. If you think otherwise could you tell me what factor would cause the difference and which one would go further.
I don't think any of the numbers are necessarily relevant to what happens with a driver, but the "smash factor" numbers definitely don't support your supposition about drivers. Smash factor is supposed to be a measure of how efficiently energy isl transferred from swing speed to ball speed. The ProV1 had higher "smash factor" numbers than 37 of the 40 balls.
I wasn't comparing the ProV1 to 37 other balls, just to the TopFlites and to demonstrate that topFlites and ProV1's went the same distance more or less. The smash factors for the balls I was referring to were different by an infinitesimal 0.006. We can't agree on one ball, why get into debates on the other balls.
Titleist's new distance ball (the DT distance, one of the replacements for the discontinued wound DT) had a slightly higher smash factor, but this ball likely incorporated some of the same technology as the ProV1, don't you think? (The other ball with a higher smash factor was a "Wilson SC Distance." Wasn't Wilson one of the companies (along with Bridgestone) who supposedly beat Titleist to the punch with supposed ProV1-type technology?)
Bryan, Along the same lines of my comments about smash factor, the height of the shots also indicates that there might be something different going on in that test with the ProV1. The ProV1 had a higher peak height than all the balls but one (again the Wilson SC distance.) The ProV1 appears to be reacting differently that what might be the traditional harder balls like the Top Flite. (Hard to say because this was 2001 and we don't know what changes were being made to these balls as compared to, say, a 1980 Top Flite.)
I was focused on the TopFlites not all the other balls. The ProV1 peaked at less than 2 feet higher than the TopFlites - probably not statistically significant. How is that the ProV1 reacting differently?
The other balls are generally within 5 feet or 4% of the ProV1 peak. Is that really significant?
Wasn't the playability of the ProV1 supposed to be much improved over the Top Flite type balls, but still supposedly different than the Balata? Namely with irons weren't they supposed to fly higher and come down softer? Whereas the balata was supposed to come down with more spin?
No, the ProV1s were supposed to spin more the 2-piece balls with short irons and thus stop more quickly than a ball with a Topflite-like COR core. As it turned out they spun less than Tour Balatas. I have no idea if that was by design or was just a compromise to get the driver COR numbers they wanted with as much spin as they could get out of a new cover and mantle.
(http://i212.photobucket.com/albums/cc235/pdools/42BDE742-FC28-47E8-8DB0-005B4EA3EB28.jpg) (http://s212.photobucket.com/user/pdools/media/42BDE742-FC28-47E8-8DB0-005B4EA3EB28.jpg.html)
Ball speed is still creeping up every year on tour.
For example the apparent movement away from using driver on traditional driver holes by longer hitting tour pros.
Do you have any data to back this up? Do you know which holes are driving measurement holes each week and what club each player used?
Your assertions about how often they hit driver don't seem to reflect the reality of their games so far as I am concerned. Trends change in golf along with the equipment, and as holes get relatively shorter as compared to how far they hit the ball, the long hitters will hit driver less, because on many holes it just doesn't make sense to try and drive it 330-340.
From Tom Paul:
Bryan Izatt:
Thank you for your reply. A week or two ago I read this thread and noticed that the suggestion was made that the USGA should ban the ProV, ProVx type ball technology. I suppose that suggestion means all balls that have combined the distance technology of the old lower spin rate two piece hard cover type ball and the softer "feel" technology of the old higher spin rate "balata" type technology. The reason given on this thread for that suggestion (beginning with #117 and #122 et al) was that this new ball technology in the last 10-20 years has only benefited the high swing speed players with increased distance and not low swing speed players, or at least not commensurately. By the way, for those participants interested in researching and investigating the history and evolution of this golf "technology" subject, there is a quite interesting 38 page presentation on the Titleist website entitled "Technology and Tradition---Preserving the Balance." I suppose some will agree with most of what it says, and others may disagree with some of it, perhaps citing the fact the presentation was produced by a prominent I&B manufacturer and therefore somewhat self-serving and perhaps not completely or factually accurate. From my own experiences playing a ton of Class A (scratch) amateur golf tournaments annually from about 1978 to about 2005, it looks pretty accurate to me. The specific aspect of ball performance of the old higher spin rate balata type technology with really high swing speed players that always fascinated me was the odd initially low (for a hundred or so yards) to swiftly climbing trajectory they put on those higher spin rate balata type balls, particularly with their driver. I thought it was such a beautiful flight (trajectory). It was not until the late 1990s or 2000s that I was told by some equipment scientists, including within and around the USGA Research and Test Center data,* that that particular trajectory could lose really high swing speed players +or- 30 yards in carry distance compared to the solid core "distance" technology that ironically only less talented and lower swing speed players seemed to use in the 1980s and early 1990s (and I suppose also compared to the new age ball technology that apparently relied on a much lower spin rate than the old "balata type" ball technology that basically most all Class A golfers used to use before the appearance and improvement to the so-called "new age" ball.
*How and why it seemed only those really high swing speed players could generate that fascinating trajectory with high spin rate "balata" type technology is a scientific/physics/aerodynamic question which is probably beyond my own purview to completely understand. And, for another "by the way," there are a few interesting articles also on the Titleist website entitled something like "the myths of ball performance" that may help participants to understand this seemingly aerodynamic phenomenon of certain types of ball performance by certain types of players (in this case excessively high swing speed players). Personally it seems to me it may have had to do with an excessive amount of "drag" behind the ball only really high swing speed players can generate, apparently due to some combination of excessive ball speed AND excessive spin rate (rpms, as well as apparently an unusually high differential of high and low pressure between the front and back of the ball) that creates excessive turbulence within the so-called "boundary layer" of air flow turbulence around and behind the ball. There is even a drawing of this excessive "drag" boundary layer behind the ball in one of those articles on the Titleist website. It appears that this excessive "drag" behind the ball might be what keeps the ball down in a low or flat initial trajectory before and until enough turbulence ("drag") dissipates behind the ball where the "boundary layer" turbulence behind the ball can begin to tuck in nicely around the back of the ball in flight-----at which point the ball climbs rapidly into a much higher final trajectory (which I suppose makes aerodynamic sense since spin rate or air flow turbulence around a flying object does create "lift" or at least so long as there is not too much "drag" behind the flying object
David
Bubba had a down year in 2013. Bubba's average stats for earlier years are often in the 310-315 range which match up with 185 ball speed, unless you think he was swinging even harder in those years, or electing to use driver more.
Of course the average driving distance will be pulled down with 3 woods etc but this would have been true for earlier periods too.
I understand that this is your view. But, you seem to have no actual data to support it.
If using tour averages is bad, then using one player, Bubba, is worse.
It is possible that there is potential for tour players to gain more distance than their tour averages suggest. But, you discount the same potential in "average" players. For tour players it might be course management related. For average players it might be a lack of skill to achieve optimal conditions on a consistent basis.
On the ball "behaviour" front, I'm still trying to understand how you think different balls behave differently. Suppose we create a hypothetical scenario where a robot is set up in a controlled environment to have a repeatable swing speed, angle of attack, dynamic loft and spin loft and hits two balls - the ProV1 and the TopFlite. And, we compare the results of multiple repetitions of the test for each ball. What aspects of the ball launch and trajectory do you think would be different? What forces would be at work to produce the different behaviours? What parts of the composition of the ball would affect the behaviour and why?
The R&A study is fatally flawed because they use all drives, not just good ones.
The Tour average numbers are at least representative of more frequent "good" drives for those people, don't you think?
Do you have any proof/evidence that there are more 3 wood or "babied" drivers being hit today?
I think the Quintavalla study explained that they had to move the ball slightly as the club head speed went up because the face came into the ball a little different with each increase. Could higher speed launch the ball higher with everything else equal?
But to look at these numbers and still claim that elite players and average players have received the same benefit? Preposterous.
"Due to anticipated differences in the clubhead presentation at each speed, some specification had to be made in how the ball would be positioned on the tee. The tee position was first set at the highest speed in accordance with the ODS, to provide the proper launch conditions (“ALC”) for the USGA/R&A Calibration Ball. At subsequent speeds, the tee position was changed in order to maintain the vertical position of the impact location on the clubhead, as well as to ensure that the resultant ball trajectory would be straight (ascertained by hitting outdoors). The tee position was left unchanged in the longitudinal (towards the fairway) direction. This completely specified the impact location of the ball on the face at different speeds. The reported results were the average of six hits at each test condition."
Garland,
This is what I was referring to in the Quintavalla piece...not sure what the impact is.
Jim,
I'm pretty sure he doesn't have any proof/evidence since I've asked the same question twice with no answer.
David,
To try to focus this,
What feature of the ball and the physical interaction with the club leads to a higher launch angle when the club is robotically swung exactly the same?
Bryan, I remember years ago (10-12?) that True Temper spent a lot of time working on the angle of descent when they got much bigger in graphite shafts. Not sure if this has any bearing on your stuff,but the "down range" affects were clearly something TT thought could be improved through shaft design.
But to look at these numbers and still claim that elite players and average players have received the same benefit? Preposterous.
Only if you insist on holding the 3 yard number as gospel, which is certainly your right.
Average golfers mishit drives in 1996, and they mishit drives in 2012. I can't think of any (non-technology driven) reasons why the mishit rate among average golfers might have significantly changed during this time period. Can you? If the rate mishit rate is practically constant, then the mishits ought not throw off the relative change in driver distance between 1996 and 2012.
In the December 2003 edition of Golf World, Top Flite vice president or research and development Tom Kennedy explained that players with swing speeds over 115 mph get a boost with certain balls that the average player does not get. "The transfer of energy from the club to the ball at various speeds is not linear," Kennedy said.
Part of the difficulty with these discussions is that our points of references are rarely well defined. When I refer to the old Top Flites I am referring to the Top Flites being produced in the 70's, 80's, and early 90's. I don' know if they had been significantly improved by 2001, but I wouldn't doubt it. Likewise, based on what I have read, I suspect the modern ball has also been improved since around 2001, at least for those with certain swing characteristics.
Garland,
Are you suggesting the Strata was played more than a Titleist ball in even a single event? I'd be interested to see proof.
Really? Why on earth would you use anything other than a year late 90's to 2000 Top Flite in this discussion?
For what it's worth, do you agree that the Quintavalla study was a good representation of the modern ball at various club head speeds and launch conditions? I understand this isn't directly addressing your theory...just curious of your view of that experiment itself.
Following that question, would it be helpful if a very similar study were done for the Balata balls and a hard ball like the DT, Pinnacle or Top Flite?
In my opinion, if we had a Quintavalla like study of the three types of balls, Old Soft, Old Hard and Modern at a wide range of club head speeds and multiple launch conditions we would know a hell of a lot more than we do. Do you agree?
Garland,
I think the Iron Byron was not that far off of "optimal" for the time period in which it was created. Whether it was 'optimal" or not, I think Thomas gave us a rough idea of the launch conditions being produced on Iron Byron (ball speed, launch angle, and spin) and I think that modern balls perform better under similar launch conditions.
I also think your claim that the Strata became the number one ball on the PGATour is mistaken. According to the Titleist propaganda ("Technology and Tradition"), by 2000 the use on tour of the solid core ball had grown to 27%, which is significant but well short of a majority.
In theory, yes. But in practice, I don't think so. According to the Titleist site in 2000, 73% of of golfers were playing wound balls. What balls brands do you suppose these were other than Titleists?
This article claims there were more than 100 golfers playing Titleist on tour in 2000.
http://www.pgatour.com/news/2013/09/06/the-evolution-of-the-pro-v1.html