Facts and Distance

[Garland Bayley]

I think you missed my point.  The primary conclusion I'm referring to is that modern tour balls don't exhibit disproportionate distance gains for high speed swings.  The PGA Tour stats are interesting, but scientifically unsound, as I've pointed out several times.  Enjoy them for what they are.  Everbody else seems to.

Yes, you switched gears so fast I assumed you were still in the same gear, i.e., you will still writing about the tours stats instead of the overall study.

I sent my latest query to the USGA after work last night. They have 10 to 15 days to follow through and meet their promise made in their automated response.

[Doug Siebert]

I think its great the USGA is really studying this, and the results are very interesting, but the thing that was missing was some comparison to the launch conditions of real world pros (since they were talking about the tour)

The launch angles they were attaining during their tests in the paper were several degrees lower than the values that golfers strive for today via optimization, and given that guys like Phil, Tiger and friends have been optimized their launch conditions are probably fairly dissimilar to those generated in the USGA's tests.  I'm surprised and disappointed that the USGA didn't point this shortcoming out, surely they were aware of it.

Now maybe the end result would be the same, but maybe not.  If I was prez of the USGA for a day I'd have them redo that study with the following changes:

1) get a few real world pros (don't have the give their names, just pick 3 guys from the top 10 in distance) and show their swing speed, launch angle, spin rate and distance under the same conditions as the Iron Byron tests (on the same day if possible to make them more comparable)

2) "optimize" Iron Byron so his launch angle is correct for a given spin rate then redo those tests

3) show distance figures in terms of carry as well as overall distance, since carry is what pros are optimizing for

Carry distance has increased a lot more than overall distance and is most of the problem.  If all the distance increases were on the ground it wouldn't be nearly as much of an issue as hitting in the rough would still be a bad thing because you wouldn't get that extra distance since balls don't roll much in the rough.  In addition, fairway bunkers would be a greater problem today than they used to be rather than a lesser one as they are today since you wouldn't be flying over them any better than in 1985 but your ball would be on the ground looking for a bunker 25 yards more on every drive.

[Bryan Izatt]

Garland,

Were you polite in asking your question?  Have you considered phoning them as Tom  does, if you don't get an answer?

Why don't you post the question you've asked them.  At least I'm curious.

[Bryan Izatt]

Doug,

The launch angles they reported in Table #2 are those of their first test.  They are certainly not optimal, especially for the lower swing speeds.  The higher swing speeds are closer to optimal.  The second test result graph was for swing speeds where the launch angles at all speeds were made the same as the one for 120 mph.  The third test results, in Figure 6, were for optimal launch angles at each swing speed.

I think it would be safe to say that optimal launch conditions at any swing speed are fairly well agreed on.  They are a product of aerodynamics, not who is hitting the ball.  In that context I don't see how your additional experiment with a few tour pros would add to the validity of the findings.  It is a flaw in the reporting of the results that they didn't say what the optimal parameters are.  But I see no reason to think they are conspiring to fix the numbers to make some point.

They do note in the findings on the optimal launch angle that: "It is interesting to note that the distance increase due to optimization at the 125 mph (7.5 yards) is less than half the optimization increase at 90 mph (19 yards)."  As I mentioned above the initial launch angles they used were not optimal at all for the lower swing speeds.

I agree on your points on the benefits of low balls vs high balls.  Is it your perception that in the old days all the pros hit low balls, and it is the new generation of optimized pros who are hitting high balls?  I saw an article that said the average pro launch angle in 1971 was just over 6 degrees.  What were they thinking?  It's not that they couldn't hit it high.  Nicklaus was a noted high ball hitter when he came on tour, for instance.  I think again that the players of that era just had a different concept of how to play the game.  Low vs high.  I don't see any way to regulate back to a lower game, especially with so many tour courses now being aerial target courses.