[TEPaul]

Jordan:

There's a whole host of things said on here that people try to pass off as fact, that aren't even close. Some of this stuff must just pop into their head suddenly and they just post it as if they think it's erudite or something.

If you want to see one of the weirder posts just check out Brent Hutto's #71. I have no earthly idea where he thinks he's going with that one. Just because they legislated a golf ball that was light enough to probably float in water he seems to thing that means it has no dimples or anything else resembling a golf ball. Maybe he thinks Behr and Macdonald et al were so stupid they tried to put a kyak on a tee and hit it with a golf club.

[Jordan Wall]

In stead of making new patented distance balls why not use the balls that were made in the 80's or 90's??  It seems to me they used to be good yet pros today wouldnt get the distance like todey.  I dunno, like maybe the old school Pinnacles or something.

Also, with new balls how would course conditions change in respect to the new golf balls (the patented ones)??  Would less-flight balls cause for firmer conditions and softer, slower greens??

[Garland Bayley]

Jordan,
If they were hitting Pinnacles from the 80s and 90s they would be getting the distance they are getting today. Titleist discovered how to make a high spin ball spin slowly off the driver like all Pinnacles have from day one. The ball they created is the Pro V and it goes as far as the Pinnacles did and it stops on greens too.

If they would go back to the spin characteristics of the balata balls, the high spin off the driver would be returned and the distance would be lost.

This is the point Tom Paul is making. The Pro V is more equitable, because it does not restrict distance for high speed swingers.

[Brent Hutto]

If you want to see one of the weirder posts just check out Brent Hutto's #71. I have no earthly idea where he thinks he's going with that one. Just because they legislated a golf ball that was light enough to probably float in water he seems to thing that means it has no dimples or anything else resembling a golf ball. Maybe he thinks Behr and Macdonald et al were so stupid they tried to put a kyak on a tee and hit it with a golf club.

So is that any weirder than saying that the way to solve "the distance problem" is to make golf balls that float on water?

Since you're so awestruck by that bit of genius, I thought you might get really revved up about a six-inch dimpleless floater. If a ball that floats is good, then a really big ball that floats like a cork ought to be better.

So what if you and I were each given a revolutionary new golf ball to examine. I give mine to somebody who goes and plays a couple rounds of golf with it. You go put yours in your bathtub to find out if it floats or not. Which of these methods will give a better evaluation of the new golf ball?

I'll bow out and let you have the last word. Heck, the last as many words as you like. As a parting gift just answer this one simple, direct question for me.

What possible relationship is there between whether a golf ball floats on water and whether it is a good ball for playing golf?

Thank you for your help on this matter.

[Garland Bayley]

Brent,
In my understanding, there was never any serious balls that floated on water. There was never any USGA reg that specified they might even remotely come close to floating on water. The floater "floated" on air. It was too heavily influenced by the wind and made the game too difficult. Therefore, the public rejected it and the USGA had to recind their regulation.

Perhaps now you can understand why Tom was losing patience with you.

Now if you can tell me why he lost patience with me, I would be grateful.

[DMoriarty]

Brent,
In my understanding, there was never any serious balls that floated on water.

I think you may be mistaken.  In Spirit of St. Andrews, MacKenzie lists the "pros" of the introduction into the game of a "restricted floater ball."  His fifth point reads . . .

5.  It would enable water hazards to be used more often, as players would not be subject to the expense and annoyance of losing balls in the water.

[DMoriarty]

. . . please desist from totally ridiculous statements such as the one you made above that most all the elite players hit the ball straight today or even straighter than they used to.

If you really want to see what a crock of shit statement that is just get off line and go tune into Doral as I'm about to do and did yesterday. Some things on this thread may have some truth to them but the remark that these tour players hit the ball straight or straighter than they used to is crap. Even the last couple of groups yesterday who were all around the lead were hitting tee shots all over the damn lot.

Tom, he should correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that Garland was referring to the flight path of the ball, and not accuracy of the drives of the tour players.  My understanding is that the low spin ball is indeed a "straighter ball," with less side spin as well as less back spin.  In other words, the low spin ball hooks less and slices less compared to the old balata.   So in this sense, the low spin ball is indeed a "straigher ball."

But obviously less hook and less slice will not necessarily result in more hit fairways.  With the swingspeeds these guys produce and the distance they hit the ball, it is wonder they hit any fairways.  

[Doug Siebert]

BTW, in my opinion the whole "floater" thing was a red herring whose only currency was achieved due to the happenstance of a golf ball's density being only slightly greater than that of water. It was possible in the 1920's and it is certainly within easy reach in the 2000's to make a ball exactly the weight and size of the current ball but which doesn't fly as far.

That would be a disaster as far as enforcement.  Any new rules that would make the Titleists in my bag illegal in 2008 or whatever would almost be required to change the size of the ball if it is going to affect anyone other than tour players and top level USGA and R&A competitions.

If it applied to my City Amateur and I decided to enter, they'd need some sort of way of determining if the balls I'm teeing up are legal or not.  The best way would be with a ring to test its size, if the new balls were just a bit larger it would take two seconds to check a ball.  I can't imagine any other way to do it unless all new balls were required to have a specific dimple pattern (which is another possibility the USGA could potentially consider as part of their regs) or a special mark -- though that isn't foolproof.

Any argument or suggestion that brings up the requirement of floating the ball on water is invalid on its face. Anyone babbling about the ball floating is obviously not seriously concentrating on the question at hand, to wit What is the best size and weight of a golf ball for its intended purpose of playing golf?

Well, sorry, you are too late then.  The size and weight we have now isn't ideal, the British ball that was the same weight but 1.62" instead of 1.68" went further and was easier to putt into the hole than the ball we have now.  I don't know what the "best" size would be, but we have the size and weight we have now because they are the minimum for size and maximum for weight per USGA and R&A rules, not any belief that they are best.  Its no more ideal for golf than a football is the ideal size, shape and weight for kicking field goals.  A football is the way it is because the rules say so.

But I think it is clear that something obvious and quick to check would need to change if the rules governing the ball changed.  Even if the day the USGA announced the change no nonconfirming balls were made there would still be millions of new balls in stores, garages and bags, and billions of used ones in basements, shag bags, and golf courses around the world.  I've probably lost Pro V1s in places that no human will venture for decades

[Garland Bayley]

Spin produces cuts, draws, slices, and hooks. If your ball restricts its spin for small angles and increases for larger angles, then a larger angle is required to get the ball spinning sideways to produce the same sideways movement that a smaller angle produced in the past. Therefore it is logical to conclude that the players are all hitting it straighter than they would be hitting it if they made the same swing on the old balata ball.

The ball manufacturers are touting their balls as flying straighter than they used to.

I believe the players are swinging harder than they used to. Any slightly offline hit will end up farther off center after travelling a long distance than it would if it stopped anywhere short of its final resting point. Therefore, I am not surprised that the percentages of fairway hits is going down.

[Doug Siebert]

Garland,

I don't think the "low spin for driver, high spin for wedge" thing that new balls do has anything to do specifically with the angle of the club, but rather than clubhead speed.  My understanding of how it works is that the multiple layer balls have a softer outer layer that reacts more like a balata ball on lower speed hits, so that short shots and wedge shots spin in a way pretty comparable to a balata ball (though I still miss that buttery soft feel of a Tour Balata for little shots around the green!)

With a high enough swing speed, you hit "through" that outer layer to a harder inner layer that makes the ball react more like a distance ball of old with less spin.  Kind of like covering a marble with foam, if you hit it softly the foam will determine its properties, if you hit it hard enough the marble will determine its properties.

[Garland Bayley]

"please desist from totally ridiculous statements such as the one you made above that most all the elite players hit the ball straight today or even straighter than they used to."

Tom,

Perhaps you can help me understand the following from the latest GD, pg 128. The club in question is Augusta National.

"The club is confident it knows how to test the highest golf skill so that the best players are identified and rewarded. Its decision-makers believe that in a game changing rapidly because of advances in equipment technology, the components of that test have become a moving target. According to data the club has gathered over more than 20 years, today's golf ball is being hit farther, straighter (emphasis added) and higher than ever, and stopping more quickly."

[Garland Bayley]

Doug,
Here's what is says on my box of TopFlite Tour balls.
"On woods and long irons, the low angle of the club penetrates through the cover at impact to the firm mantle layer, reducing spin and generating superior distance. On short irons and wedges, the higher loft angle of the club "pinches" the soft Spintack(TM) cover at impact, creating spin for greenside control."
It says nothing about club head speed.
If it was clubhead speed, then I venture that Tiger wouldn't be able to get his 9 iron shots to stop on a green any better than I get my 3 iron shots to stop, because I would estimate his 9 iron clubhead speed to be similar to my 3 iron club head speed.

[Doug Siebert]

I'm not saying that I know with absolute certainty that I'm right and you're wrong, but if I was an outside observer evaluating each of our positions, the fact you took what's written on a box of golf balls as accurate scientific info instead of marketing spiel would probably sway me in my decision

Its always been true that the bigger the angle of the face, the more spin you put on the ball.  Its simple physics and was true with everything from gutties to Tour Balatas.  I would venture to say that Tiger's 9 iron is landing at a much steeper angle than your 3 iron, so even if they were somehow spinning at the same rpm when landing his ball is going to stop one hell of a lot more quickly!

Plus there's a lot more to backspin that simple swing speed.  I have more swing speed than most, but it is quite rare for me to get a wedge shot to back up at all, because I hit the ball with a very shallow angle of attack that often doesn't take any turf at all.  I hit it high and it just pretty much stays where it lands under any conditions unless the greens are so hard that you've got to get out the microscope to find the ball mark.  But I've seen guys I can outdrive by 70 yards who can back up a ball better than I do, and I could sod my lawn with their divots if I followed them around the whole season.

[Garland Bayley]

Well Doug, I thought about it and I came to the conclusion that a high angled club is delivering a "glancing" blow to the bottom of the ball and therefore not penetrating to the inner core. Therefore high angle - high spin. When I hit that awful blocked slice I hit sometimes when I forget that squaring the club face is something that is highly recommended, my club face is at a high angle to the side of the ball and delivers a glancing blow to the side of the ball creating high enough spin to create a wicked slice. The club face undoubtedly did not penetrate to the inner core. Therefore, high angle - high spin.

When the expanation fits my observed data, I accept the explanation.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()