John, I don't deny the validity of the results using just one driver; the USGA test club. Do you think that graph's slope would change if they optimized the driver as they increased club head speed?

One interesting thing I've seen in the paper is that when they launched balls under optimal conditions, the distance increase due to optimization at 125 mph (7.5 yards) was a lot less than the distance increase at 90 mph (19 yards).

This can be looked at in two ways.  One is that it is a good thing because it means that optimization doesn't do as much for the big hitter.  The other is that it is a bad thing since the big hitter seems to get the results regardless of how optimal his swing/club is.

Well I guess I should have gone a little farther then I did on the Titleist website.
They later give a graph that is hard to read accurately, but seems to show only 27% using solid balls at the beginning of 2000, and slightly over 40% by the end.

Still Geoff's suggestion of using 1995 would clearly be comparing all wound vs. the all solid 2005.

John,

I think I showed you "facts" (at least what you get from a marketing website (Titleist)) that call into question the old ball vs. new ball argument of the paper.

As I wrote before, I understand what their test disproves and have no disagreement with it. I think the issue is the change in balls. I think that what drives people to conclude disproportionality is not within the same ball, but the gains derived from changing balls.

Slower swingers have always imparted less spin on the ball. The difference in spin rate between hitting the two different kinds of balls for a slow swinger is less than the difference in the spin rate between hitting the two different kinds of balls for a fast swinger. Logically, this would suggest more gain for the faster swinger. If spin rate were the only factor in play, it would demonstrate there has to be more gain for the faster swinger.

They have the science and the formulae. Why don't the plug data from the balata wound ball into their formulae and give us that result, instead of using tour data from a year of questionable ball use?

Matt,

What have to be able to do is to understand the terms used above. Since the COR goes down for higher swing speeds, the answer to your question is no it doesn't get extra kick, it gets less kick than one would expect for the higher swing speed. COR measures the rebound ability of the ball.

Yep George, in the paper.

Didn't the Consumer Report on golf balls show the same result...slower swing speeds got as much distance, if not more, than higher swing speeds?

Here's the thing...comparing today's data with data from 5,10,20,or 50 years ago is meaningless.

What matters is what is happening now....today's ball and today's club...

From what I see at my golf course, 50% of the golfers might have clubs purchased in the last two years....and very few use Pro V1's...perhaps that is why I don't see that many golfers knockin' it 300 yards  

Garland,
I don't think anybody disputes that the "changeover" from balata to solid core balls has really benefitted the pros more than the rest of us, simply because they now use balls that meet the ODS, which has been the same for years.  Most golfers were already using solid core balls before the ProV came out, of course.  Since the pros are now hitting the equivalent of a Pinnacle (almost) that spins a lot off a wedge, they have clearly benefitted the most from that change.  I think that's a settled matter, and I doubt anybody would bother to do any research on it.

As JohnV says, the issue here has been the debate over whether or not ProV's and the like give more than a 10% gain for a 10% increase in swing speed if the swing speed is very high, but only 10% or less if the swing speed is slower.  I had that impression, along with many others, and it now is evident to me that I was wrong.  The fact that 10% of a bigger number is a bigger number is NOT a nonlinear gain, so I stand corrected.

Since the pros are now hitting the equivalent of a Pinnacle (almost) that spins a lot off a wedge, they have clearly benefitted the most from that change.  I think that's a settled matter, and I doubt anybody would bother to do any research on it.

Exactly. The manufacturers found a way to make a ball that elite players can use which goes every bit as far as the ODS allows and with managable driver spin. The USGA assumed that the strongest players would always choose a Balata ball and only weaker players would max out the distance possible with their clubhead speed. When that ceased to be the case (circa 1999) it took the USGA 5+ years to react to that manifestly evident trend. I have confidence that the USGA can at least limit future distance gains and perhaps even impose a modest rollback. If that is needed, it would be better to do it now rather than wait another half a decade.

Garland, for a number of years, there have been people on this site and elseware arguing that the ball went disproportionately longer when you swung faster.  That is what this test disproves.

Please tell me what paper, whether published in a scientific journal or not, shows any facts that support that argument or counter the arguments put forward in this paper.

I don't need no bridges in Brooklyn, I live in the city of bridges.

The headline on the article is "Do Long Hitters Get An Unfair Benefit?", not does the ball go further today.

Certainly the ball goes further than a wound balata ball did in previous years.  Also, the club heads are bigger, the swing speeds are much faster, the shafts add more and, while I know that Geoff likes to mock it, the players in general are in a hell of a lot better shape.  Add it all up and I agree that golf today is a different game than 20 or 30 years ago.  Should it be changed?  In my opinion it probably should, but I'm not sure that rolling back the ball is the answer, but I've been back and forth on that a number of times.

I must admit that after reading this report I need to eat a dinner full of crow.  However, I still have questions...

First, I would love someone to check the accuracy of the chart that shows a "selected" grouping of tour pros gain in distance.  I would like to know who the pros are that they are speaking of and see the actual data that shows the distance increase they suggest has occured for these pros.  I seem to recall checking many tour pro averages and noticing sizable gains for longer hitters, relatively.

Second, they should do a test with balatas from 1995, a Titleist Professional circa 1999, and a Pinnacle circa 1995.  If they showed the same near linear gain in distance from their Iron Byron as the modern ball does then I would say that I have been clearly wrong on this subject.  Maybe it is just a general increase in distance gained by all players that has become a detriment to the game.  I know the balata may not show the same linear results but maybe the Pinnacle and Professional balls would.  I would like to know if this linear gain in distance has been consistent in those balls just as it is in the modern ProV1 type ball.

Third, I would like to see a study on how much side spin is imparted on a ball from different club paths and face angles and whether or not there is a difference in the modern ball from the high-end balls that came right before it.  I would venture a guess that the modern ball doesn't curve as much as balls that came before it when hit with different swing paths and face angles at impact.  If this is the case this could contribute to longer distances.  


Speaking from experience I can say that I have gained a tremendous increase in my average driving distance over the last 5-10 years.  I have also experienced a much less amount of curve or deviation in my ball flight over this period of time as well.  

All in all, it looks as if this might be the USGA's way of saying that they are not going to pursue a rollback and that everything is fair and ok.


Jeff F.

Quote from: A.G._Crockett on April 19, 2006, 07:16:34 PM

Garland,
I don't think anybody disputes that the "changeover" from balata to solid core balls has really benefitted the pros more than the rest of us, simply because they now use balls that meet the ODS, which has been the same for years.  

They have disputed whether that was fair. TEP called it ultimately fair and I disagreee. Eventually he called me nasty names. I wear that as a badge of honor!

Quote from: A.G._Crockett on April 19, 2006, 07:16:34 PM

As JohnV says, the issue here has been the debate over whether or not ProV's and the like give more than a 10% gain for a 10% increase in swing speed if the swing speed is very high, but only 10% or less if the swing speed is slower.  I had that impression, along with many others, and it now is evident to me that I was wrong.  The fact that 10% of a bigger number is a bigger number is NOT a nonlinear gain, so I stand corrected.

That is one issue here. And is settled as far as I am concerned.
Another issue here is does the pros benefiting from this change hurt golf.
Several subissues
a) Courses become longer
b) golf becomes more expensive
c) time to play becomes longer
d) pro game is all a boring game of smash and wedge
...
Another issue that the USGA paper did a shoddy job of addressing is did the high swing speed pros gain more than the low swing speed pros.
Subissues
Distance
Flight curvature

How it is unfair for a player who is able to swing faster than me to hit it farther than me escapes me.  That's just the way golf is.

To me, the course length/expense/time issue is something ALWAYS blamed on the golf ball on this site.  I think the changes have much, much more to do with marketing a modern golf course in a highly competitive market place with a growing supply of courses.  Since the vast, vast majority of players aren't hitting the ball any farther than they ever did, how could the distance the ball will travel be responsible for longer courses?  It is just too easy an answer.

The old bible "Search for the Perfect Swing"  stated this i.e. the COR for a given ball was higher for a putt than a drive.

The improvements in driver have been more significant than ball.