[Jeff Fortson]

"My question is.....
Where was this statement three or four years ago?"

Jeff Fortson:

I thought you told me you were aware of the USGA's $10 million study of the golf ball and all it various dynamics they could discover from that study. The USGA's study was launched in 2002-2003. Unless my math is no good it looks like that put it about 3 or 4 years ago. Much of Vernon's report at the annual Meeting of the USGA last month was the result of that $10 million study. Does that answer your question about where Vernon's statement was three or four years ago?

Tom,

You mean to tell me that it has taken FOUR years to come up with the hypothesis he presents in his statement?  Reread the statement, it's a giant generalizaztion of the issue.  He doesn't discuss numbers and hard facts in it.  Just because he had done research doesn't mean that the USGA had taken a stance on the issue.  Why couldn't they say they were extremely concerned four years ago and that they were going to research the issue?  Are you implying that they chose to secretly do research and then come out this last February with a statement that basically says the issue is complex?

IV. Conclusion

The Equipment Standards Committee has set an aggressive agenda for 2006, and we believe it accurately reflects the state of the industry and the game. Underlying all our efforts will be the philosophy set forth in the Statement of Principles: we will remain vigilant to assure that technology does not diminish the skill necessary to play the game.

This statement is encouraging and I hope they follow through.  I will support them when they finally pull the trigger.


Jeff F.

[TEPaul]

"Tom,
You mean to tell me that it has taken FOUR years to come up with the hypothesis he presents in his statement?  Reread the statement, it's a giant generalizaztion of the issue.  He doesn't discuss numbers and hard facts in it.  Just because he had done research doesn't mean that the USGA had taken a stance on the issue.  Why couldn't they say they were extremely concerned four years ago and that they were going to research the issue?  Are you implying that they chose to secretly do research and then come out this last February with a statement that basically says the issue is complex?"

JeffF:

Yes, it probably has taken that long. Some of you people just don't seem to understand we live in a tough world. You just don't say to those manufacturers you duped us, you duped golf, whatever--eg you're not going by the spirit of this stuff and apparently not the letter either.

Jeff, I may only say this to you one time and maybe I'll erase it in less than a day. The USGA is going to fly this whole thing under the radar screen so low you just won't believe it. One of these days guys like you (really good players) are going to tee it up and say to yourself; "Well, shit, what's this? I thought I was strong but I guess not."    

The trick here will be to get this done in such a way that the manufacturers can keep their con. In the end, that's all they really care about. As P.T. Barnum said: "A sucker is born every minute."

[ed_getka]

I think the next to last paragraph in that statement is encouraging. However, I don't see them telling me anything a high schooler couldn't have come up with. Hmmm, lets see we have size, weight, materials, dimples, etc... They actually pay somebody to do this?
   I agree with Jeff that it is a relatively glacial speed that the USGA has come to the conclusion that the issue is complex.
   However, I am glad Jeff posted that and I choose to remain encouraged and hopeful.

[DMoriarty]

TomP, I am glad you questioned me in your post above,  because your post really helps us get at our major differences regarding our respective understandings of the ODS limit . . .

I do understand the ODS Limitation, but I also have some understanding of its limitations. The major limitation of the ODS tests, old and new, is that they each only test at one clubhead speed.    Just because two balls both fly the same distance off a persimmon club swung at 109 mph (the old test), this does NOT mean that they will necessarily fly identical distances when both are hit with modern equipment at 140 mph, or at 75 mph for that matter.   I've been telling you this for a very long time, and others have agreed . . . I even tried to demonstrate this graphically, but you did not like my chart.    So far I am afraid that you have apparently not come to grips with this notion, and it remains the major sticking point of our conversations.

Perhaps if you think about it within the context of the following example using two real world conforming balls--  the ProV1 and the ProV1x.  

Both the ProV1 and the ProV1x comply (and complied) with the USGA test for distance, presumably at or very close to the distance limit.  So by your understanding as expressed above, neither the ProV1 nor the ProV1x is any longer than the other.  Because they traveled the same distances under test conditions, they ought to travel identical distances to the other whenever they are hit under similar circumstances (speed, club, condition, etc.) [/i ] Yet at very high swing speeds and with the right equipment, the ProV1x flies further than the ProV does under identical conditions.  Much further.

If you don't believe me then take a look at the top distance gainers on Tour the year the ProV1x was introduced (2003.)  Almost every one of the big gainers switched to the ProV1x that year, most from the ProV.   And the gains are extraordinary.  For example, at least thirty (30) tour players gained 9 yards or more after switching to the ProVx.  Same players, new ball, big gains.  

So to answer the question you asked at the end of your post . . .  If the ProV1x is longer than the ProV1 at high swing speeds, then it is perfectly reasonable to ask whether the ProV1x is longer or shorter than the Pinnacle, and at what speeds.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()