I just spoke with my brother who is competing in the O.G.A.tournament @ Springfield, teeing it up this morning.  He said that the committee had the players hit shots with their ball preference and then with the "tournament ball", while measuring launch angles and distances.  David said that he carried his (PRO V1) 241 yds. with driver and 247 yds. with the tournament ball with the same run-out.  He realized very little difference in the iron shots.  He added that the college players were carrying their drivers about 250 with the tournament ball.  He noted that the ball reacted very well around the green and putted very well!
  I wonder if the ball companies are at all worried about golfers who have been paying $55-$75 for their dozens realizing that they get almost the same performance from a ball (type) that costs much less with minimal change in performance.
  Dvae said that he will give me an update later today after he plays round 1.      

Tom:

If performance characteristics go the way I sort of expect them to with that ball the OGA has selected and with the way the USGA tech center seems to imply they should, it would appear the slower swing speeds will not be affected carry distance-wise as much as the higher swing speed players will be.

If the physics of it are as I expect they are it would appear that those who swing at 105-110 mph and definitely well above that will probably be putting somewhat of an initially flat and then somewhat steeply rising trajectory on their shots much like the old higher spinning balls of yesteryear, while those who swing below that MPH are not so capable of producing that old trajectory. That trajectory, by the way, is pretty much the opposite of carry distance enhancing.

David:  I guess you would include the likes of Corey Pavin and Fred Funk as "non-competitive" also with your logic.

So this is fair?  A player who carries a ProV1 241 carries this ball 247 and a college player who probably swings a lot faster and carries a ProV1 275-300 only carries it 250.

It seems to me that this is the opposite of fair, a player who has a better/faster swing is not getting any benefit from it.

Maybe the big swinger gets too much from the Pro V1, but he is getting too little from this ball, it only turns the injustice the other way.  All things considered, I prefer the way it is, at least you get rewarded (even if it is too much) for that ability.

As a fairly long hitter myself, I would hate to see this. Espescially since my irons leave a lot to be desired. I can make up for some of my average iron games with the distance off the tee. If that wasn't the case, I'd be in some real trouble.

So this is fair?  A player who carries a ProV1 241 carries this ball 247 and a college player who probably swings a lot faster and carries a ProV1 275-300 only carries it 250.

It seems to me that this is the opposite of fair, a player who has a better/faster swing is not getting any benefit from it.

Maybe the big swinger gets too much from the Pro V1, but he is getting too little from this ball, it only turns the injustice the other way.  All things considered, I prefer the way it is, at least you get rewarded (even if it is too much) for that ability.

I get it John! Golf was unfair until the Strata and then the Pro V1 introduced these artificial spin characteristics to golf balls!

If the young gun wants to carry the pond, then let him hit rockflites! These carry distances are not news! They have been available for a long time! I was hitting these distances in the early 70s. They have just not been available to the elite players, because they always chose to play high spin balls.

The high swing speed player always had an advantage in being able to produce more spin when desired. What's wrong to going back to just that advantage? Why cave in and give him every advantage through artificial technology?
Why not make the spitter legal in baseball?
Why not make sandpaper legal in baseball?

Tom,

Did your brother mention his swing speed and launch angle?  Or those of the college players?  Did they measure spin rate?  What technology did they use to measure (Vector?)  How did they measure rollout?  So many questions.  

Did he mention if the data would be made available to the participants?

I think I'd hold off declaring victory until more of the data is available.  It would be stunning if there was a legally conforming ball out there that increased distance at 105mph swing speed and decreased it by 50 yards for "college" players at 125mph swing speeds.

Garland,

I agree that we do not know what the USGA's plans might be.  But, if a minimum spin rate was defined, it very well could mean that Toprocks or Pinnacles are illegal.  The USGA Conforming Ball list contains descriptions of spin rates for the driver and 5-iron.  These are given to them by the company so they are not consistent across companies, but since Pinnacle and the Pro V1 are both made by the same company, it might be possible that they are consistent. Given that, almost all Pinnacles are rated as Low spin while Pro V1s are rated as Medium spin.  Top Flites and Stratas are all Low to Medium.  All the ball companies have figured out is how to combine the best of both worlds.

I definitely agree that we have spotty, anecdotal information from Ohio.  I'm willing to wait for any final conclusions.

I think my analogy is just as applicable since it seems like there are those who are happy that all players are hitting it about the same distance (based on the anecdotes above) which would be the same as my analogy.  If the stronger player with the better swing gets no reward for that, I feel that is wrong.

If the Ohio data showed that the guy who carries it 241 now carries it 247 and the guy who carried it 285 now carries it 265 I would be more able to accept it that 247 to 250.  The bigger hitter deserves the rewards of that.  Now, if spin rates were increased, the ball wouldn't go as straight so he might pay a price for that length and I would be fine with that also.

What I'm saying is that I have no problem with some sort of rollback, but I definitely would have a problem with one which took away all the advantage for superior skill/strength.

John,

Since there are far more low spin balls than there are high spin balls, I cannot see the USGA ruling that the vast majority of current balls will become illegal.

George,

Hard to believe indeed! I simply do not believe the anecdotal second hand data we have from Ohio so far.

EDIT: I guess I should clarify that. I do not believe what we have so far will hold up in general.

Tom, I see your brother shot 76 today and is tied for 21st.  One guy shot 67 and has a 4 shot lead.  Also, Alan Fadel who was the man behind the idea shot 75.  Any comments from your brother?

First day results can be seen here

Does anyone know who is conducting the measuring and analysis that was described in the intial post of this topic? Is it the OGA volunteers, or have they hired someone, OSU physicists, for example, or an independent engineering firm?

In the quotations fromk the Columbus Dispatch article, Popa seems to imply that the USGA is lting about the ball. Does anyone here believe that?

Tom:

THe USGA has decades of data on ball performance. If the information they put out to the public is inaccurate, how likely is it that it's a mistake?

I'm not making any assertion here, just asking a question based on Jim Popa's quotation from the article. If anyone believes the USGA is misleading golfers, what evidence is there? (NOT anicdotal evidence, like "the ball is going farther that 25 years ago-" duh) but real, solid, we got the dicumentation, take it to court evidence.

There was very good article in the Columbus Dispatch this mourning which you can be accessed at http://www.geoffshackelford.com.

On Shackelford's site, there is also reference to a Golf World index of articles in their next issue which claims the ball is a Volvik, as I speculated it might be a couple of weeks ago.  Perhaps it is the Volvik Pro'sPect which is described as follows on a Volvik site:

" Pro’sPect Z-Urethane 3 PC Ball
        Amateur golfers are looking for a better golf ball that fits their swing speed, not their pro’s swing speed. The unique 70 compression ProsPect Z-Urethane 3 Piece Ball will go a long way to fit the swing speed of the average golfer golfer.
        A premium golf ball, made for a wider range of swing types, Volvik’s new 3 piece construction Pro’sPect Z-Urethane, is the industry’s 1st “affordable” soft urethane cover ball. Its 70 compression core offers penetrating ball flight for a wider range of swing speeds, while its multi-layer construction gives it amazing feel and control around the greens. Slower swing speed translate to more control. A golf ball fit to that swing speed will perform better than a harder construction golf ball. "

Interesting marketing gobbledy-gook.

Presumably the OGA tested the ball before selecting it and felt that it would fly shorter for high swing speeds.  The advertising seems to suggest that it will have penetrating flight trajectory at all speeds.  So maybe it's the low compression that would reign it in.

What will the OGA experiment tell them/us?  I expect that from the tournament use itself there will be nothing useful, since there is no control group or mechanism.  From the pre-tournament testing they should be able to determine how far this ball will fly, how much it will spin, and how it launches relative to swing speed (the infamous Moriarty chart of last winter), assuming they had a reasonable range of swing speeds amonst the 90 odd participants.  As mentioned in a previous post the comparison to the player's current ball will be tainted by the lack of optimization of the driver to the Volvik ball.

My guess of the outcome, if they ever publish it, is that there will be a more or less linear relationship between total distance and swing speed with the Volvik.  I think there will also be a linear relationship between total distance and current ball as well, with a slightly greater slope.  There might be a small reduction in overall distance with the Volvik at high speeds (maybe 10 yards) but it will not be much greater than the margin of error of the experiment.