[TEPaul]

"Yes, the distance revolution has likely left you behind.  If you are like the vast majority of golfers, your swing speed isnt fast enough to reap a distance advantage from the new equipment.  Therein therein lies the dilemna of the distance revolution-- distance gap between long hitters and the rest of us is out of balance."

David:

Do you know how close to the ODS pass/fail line regarding overall distance the old three piece wound balls were? Or how they performed in overall distance in relation to the two piece hard balls that were brought into golf in the last 40 or so years when both were struck at 109mph?

For you to state that the gap between long hitters and the rest of us is out of balance one would think you'd need to know that first.

[DMoriarty]

He can optimize, vectorize, and equipment match all he wants, and this might give him some more distance, but unless he has high enough swing speed he will NOT get a benefit anywhere near proportional to what the big hitters get.   Just because something works well with a 120 mph swing doesnt mean it will work well at 90 mph or 60 mph.  Why is that so hard for you guys to understand?

_________________________________

David:

Do you know how close to the ODS pass/fail line regarding overall distance the old three piece wound balls were? Or how they performed in overall distance in relation to the two piece hard balls that were brought into golf in the last 40 or so years when both were struck at 109mph?

For you to state that the gap between long hitters and the rest of us is out of balance one would think you'd need to know that first.

Why on earth would I need to know any of that, specifically? It sounds like Andy's swing speed is well below 109 mph.  And many of the top players are well above 109.   And neither Andy nor the big hitters are using the balls you mention.  So while the knowledge you mention might well be interesting, it is by no means dispositive.  

[Andy Doyle]

... a good solid drive will go 260. But that's about where I hit it 10 or 20 years ago.

What am I missing? Why has the revolution left me behind?

I would argue that the revolution hasn't left you behind - it has basically allowed you to maintain your distance over two decades.

Over 20 years, the average adult loses a significant amount of strength and flexibility and the usual result is decreased distance.  Same as you, though, I'm hitting my drives as far now as I did in my 20's - and I am definitely less flexible and not as strong.  I'm getting the same distance with a more restricted and weaker swing.

Plus, as mentioned, the distance increase is not linear, it's exponential (or at least there is some threshold) - faster swing speeds can mean much greater distance.

I have a hard time believing Tiger's increased distance is due to improved physical conditioning.  I don't think an athlete at his level of conditioning gets 20 additional yards from working out harder.

Andy

[George Pazin]

I'd love to hear a real physicist or engineer chime in with an opinion on the notion that it takes the high swing speeds to reap the real benefits of the new technology. Not Frank Thomas, either. I could accept this someone I knew and respected verified it, but it smacks me as somewhat flawed logically. The laws of physics are generally fairly continuous....

Andy, are you really not longer? Are you sure you're comparing apples to apples? Is your memory accurate, or are you only remembering select drives, etc.? Anecdotal evidence is not terribly reliable.

Here is the difference I've seen in my own game, and I don't play pro v1s or the latest drivers/shafts,  optimization, etc.:

Every now and then I hit a drive that feels like a barely swung and it goes 300+. (And anyone who's played with me can attest  to the fact that I never barely swing. ) The scientist in me guesses that this is simply the 1 in 1,000 swings I make where I actually achieve ball flight conditions approaching those of a lower level pro. The biggest difference (at least as far as length goes) is that these guys do it 9 in 10 swings, and I do it about 1 in 500 or 1,000. So they reap the benefits almost every swing, whereas I reap the benefits about once a year.

Craig, Tiger has stated many times that he was longer when he was younger. He changed his swing (the first time, anyway) to become more consistent, not longer. (And anyone that thinks he changed it radically should look at the photos in his book, they very similar when comparing ages 16 and 25 or whatever. I'd hardly call it a swing change as much as a swing refinement. Now, the second change, well, that's another story entirely.)

[TEPaul]

"I'd love to hear a real physicist or engineer chime in with an opinion on the notion that it takes the high swing speeds to reap the real benefits of the new technology. Not Frank Thomas, either. I could accept this someone I knew and respected verified it, but it smacks me as somewhat flawed logically. The laws of physics are generally fairly continuous...."

George;

You're right about the laws of physics. Too bad you don't seem to trust Frank Thomas's understanding of physics and golf ball and equipment technology. It's a shame so many blame this recent distance increase on him. In my opinion, doing that is simply a failure to understand the facts. If the USGA & R&A boards had listened to what Frank Thomas recommended they should do regarding I&B beginning around 1990 this distance issue would not be remotely what it is today. Frank's recommendatons, that were basically not listened to or adopted, are pretty much part of the record.

In any case, you can believe someone on here you may trust but do you really think they understand the technicalities of this subject as well as the USGA's Tech Center?

I spoke to them about a week ago and reported on here what they said about how the distance increase relates to the golf ball in the last 10-12 years. You can believe what you hear on here from someone who tries to analyze PGA Tour statistics and relies on hypothetical graphs and such he creates himself and others who explain this subject from what they do themselves or some conjecture such as in 1980 a big hitter was 60 yards longer than an average hitter but now he's 120 yards longer. God knows where that data and those statistics and numbers come from.

According to the Tech Center the distance increase has been caused "technologically" by three basic factors;

1. Increase in COR
2. The new-age ball
3. Optimization

In the last 20-25 years COR increased from app .078 to .086 and has now been limited to .083.

The new-age ball is really nothing more than a significantly lower spin rate ball than the elite players (big hitters) used to use up until about ten year ago that feels almost as "soft" to them as the old much higher spin rate three pieces wound ball they all used to use which simply did not go as far as either the new age balls OR the old low spinning two piece (Hard) ball that's been around for over 40 years. They never used that old low spinning ball (Pinnacle type) simply because if felt too hard to them around greens. The reason the old high spin rate three piece wound ball did not go as far for big hitters is because of its trajectory which was not the distance enhancing trajectory of the new age ball OR THE OLD HARD BALL. (As an example the USGA Tech Center said last week that if a Davis Love hit an old low spinnng two piece hard ball (like a Pinnacle) with his equipment today it would go about as far as the ball he uses today (ProV series).

This is precisely why I asked David Moriarty if he knows how much farther the low spinning ball (the old Pinnacle or the new ProV) goes if hit at 109 mph compared to the old high spinning ball all the elite players used to use until about ten years ago. Apparenly he doesn't understand the significance of the question. The significance of the question is---what if all the elite players hit the old two piece hard ball as most all handicap players did starting about 40 years ago? Would he then conclude that the distance differential between power hitters and average hitters got out of balance 40 years ago instead of recently? And does he think the distance differential was in balance during those app 30 years when basically all long hitters and all average hitters used two entirely different types of ball but it's now out of balance when they use the same type of ball?  

There seems to be little doubt that when any elite player takes advantage of "Optimization" their distance will generally increase and apparently by perhap 20+ yards if they switch to the maximum distance combination of allowable club and ball. How many of these people on here have been optimized (as most of the tour players have) who are using their own games as an explanation for the distance issue and how out of balance long hitters are to the rest?

Basically George you can believe what the USGA Tech Center says about ball and club performance. Essentially probably no one knows it better than they do. That's what they do. That's what they're there for. I only wish it was them who could actually make I&B rules and reg policy rather than only recommend what I&B policy should be to the two boards. But that's just not the way the R&A and USGA work. And they are the only two organizations in the world that regulate and administer I&B rules and regulations.

By the way and again, having spoken at length to Thomas about this overall distance increase (the last 10-15 years), he seems to attribute the increase "technologically" to #1, #2 and #3 above in approximately equal portions.

[Alfie]

Andy,

Ted Ray (a recognised big hitter of the Braid era) was asked the secret of long hitting by a student golfer to which he replied ;

HIT IT A BLOODY SIGHT HARDER, MATE !!!!!!

Alfie

[DMoriarty]

TEPaul said:

I spoke to them about a week ago and reported on here what they said about how the distance increase relates to the golf ball in the last 10-12 years. You can believe what you hear on here from someone who tries to analyze PGA Tour statistics and relies on hypothetical graphs and such he creates himself . . .

You’ve got this wrong here, Tom.  The basic assumption behind my chart (linear distance increase with increased ball speed) came from your report on what the USGA told you.   And f you doubt the pertinence of my chart, I suggest you take a look at JohnV’s analysis.  Had he transferred his numbers to a chart you would see that his numbers parallel mine and demonstrate the same point.  Surely you aren’t suggesting that JohnK is doubting or ignoring the USGA’s expertise on this, are you?  

In the last 20-25 years COR increased from app .078 to .086 and has now been limited to .083.

 
Your analysis here is about the COR of clubs and ignores the COR of the ball, which is crucial to understanding what is going on with these new balls.

The new-age ball is really nothing more than a significantly lower spin rate ball than the elite players (big hitters) used to use up until about ten year ago that feels almost as "soft" to them as the old much higher spin rate three pieces wound ball they all used to use which simply did not go as far as either the new age balls OR the old low spinning two piece (Hard) ball that's been around for over 40 years. They never used that old low spinning ball (Pinnacle type) simply because if felt too hard to them around greens.

This strikes me as accurate and I have been assuming so throughout these discussions.    But let’s be clear that it was NEW TECHNOLOGY (mainly in the form of new materials and a 3 piece ball)  ] that made the switch to low spin balls possible for the better players.    The old Pinnacles balls may have gone far at high swing speeds, but for the better players  they were like a race car with no steering wheel or breaks . . . NO CONTROL.  

The reason the old high spin rate three piece wound ball did not go as far for big hitters is because of its trajectory which was not the distance enhancing trajectory of the new age ball OR THE OLD HARD BALL. (As an example the USGA Tech Center said last week that if a Davis Love hit an old low spinnng two piece hard ball (like a Pinnacle) with his equipment today it would go about as far as the ball he uses today (ProV series).

A large part of the reason was the balls really spun so much at higher swing speeds that they would balloon and lose distance.   You have said as much when you described the old players hitting a ball which would start out low and then rise like a jet.  That is spin creating lift, and if there is too much lift, distance will be sacrificed.  

As for Davis Love III, he  may have been able to hit a Pinnacle almost as far as the ProV1x (assuming modern club technology,)  but he would never have done so because he could not control such a ball.    So instead he took a smooth swing at a ball he could control.  He had no other realistic option.  

This is precisely why I asked David Moriarty if he knows how much farther the low spinning ball (the old Pinnacle or the new ProV) goes if hit at 109 mph compared to the old high spinning ball all the elite players used to use until about ten years ago. Apparenly he doesn't understand the significance of the question. The significance of the question is---what if all the elite players hit the old two piece hard ball as most all handicap players did starting about 40 years ago?

I don’t think this question has the significance you place upon it, but instead raises quite the opposite point.  

There was a very good reason that the better players did not use hard two-piece balls:  Forty years ago, the better players could not control the Pinnacles, especially at high swing speeds.   In other words, 40 years ago these low spin, hard cover balls were not yet technologically advanced enough to be of any practical use to the better players--  especially with 1966 woods.  

But much has changed technologically in the past 40 years to clubs, balls, and optimization.   So now Davis Love III can hit the low spin ball and reap the distance benefits that were not a realistic option before.   More significantly for this discussion, the new technology (including balls, clubs and their optimization) also allows him to swing much harder than he ever could with a soft, high spin ball.  

Would he then conclude that the distance differential between power hitters and average hitters got out of balance 40 years ago instead of recently? And does he think the distance differential was in balance during those app 30 years when basically all long hitters and all average hitters used two entirely different types of ball but it's now out of balance when they use the same type of ball?  

Had  the modern technology (the clubs and balls and optimization) happened forty years ago then YES, it the game would have gotten out of balance 40 years ago.  

And YES, the game was much more in balance 30 years ago because low ball spin technology was then in its infancy—they were decades away from designing and producing a controllable low spin ball for better players.    

Basically George you can believe what the USGA Tech Center says about ball and club performance. Essentially probably no one knows it better than they do. That's what they do. That's what they're there for.  

This is where you lose me, Tom.    I think everything I am saying is in complete agreement with your report of information from the USGA.   If I am mistaken about this, then I’d really appreciate if you or someone else could specifically tell me where what I am saying is in contradiction to what the USGA is saying.    

[TEPaul]

Quote:
This is precisely why I asked David Moriarty if he knows how much farther the low spinning ball (the old Pinnacle or the new ProV) goes if hit at 109 mph compared to the old high spinning ball all the elite players used to use until about ten years ago. Apparenly he doesn't understand the significance of the question. The significance of the question is---what if all the elite players hit the old two piece hard ball as most all handicap players did starting about 40 years ago?
 

"I don’t think this question has the significance you place upon it, but instead raises quite the opposite point.  

There was a very good reason that the better players did not use hard two-piece balls:  Forty years ago, the better players could not control the Pinnacles, especially at high swing speeds.   In other words, 40 years ago these low spin, hard cover balls were not yet technologically advanced enough to be of any practical use to the better players--  especially with 1966 woods.  

But much has changed technologically in the past 40 years to clubs, balls, and optimization.  So now Davis Love III can hit the low spin ball and reap the distance benefits that were not a realistic option before.  More significantly for this discussion, the new technology (including balls, clubs and their optimization) also allows him to swing much harder than he ever could with a soft, high spin ball."

David:

What you say there is not the case. Big hitters did not play two piece hard balls not because they couldn't control them at high swing speeds but because they felt they had little control with them on approach shots once they hit the green and particularly with chipping and putting. Essentially even a bit hitter could not spin the hard ball enough to suck it back, among other drawbacks, in their opinions.

When you say the two piece ball wasn't technologically advanced enough it sort of makes me wonder how old you are David. How old are you? Were you playing two piece balls forty years ago?  

[TEPaul]

"And YES, the game was much more in balance 30 years ago because low ball spin technology was then in its infancy—they were decades away from designing and producing a controllable low spin ball for better players."

A controllable low spin ball? What do you mean by that? Again, If you mean big hitters couldn't control the old low spin two piece hard balls compared to the old high spin three piece ball at high swing speeds you're just wrong. Where are you coming up with that notion? The only reason elite players didn't use those old two piece balls is simply because they felt too hard to them around the green. It had nothing to do with control at high swing speed.

But the point is that old two piece ball would go app as far if hit with today's equipment as a ProV type today. That was essentially what the USGA confirmed a week or so ago. That's what you need to come to understand and admit.

Again, what created most of this distance spike as it relates to the golf ball ONLY was that elite players switched about ten years ago from the old high spin balls to the new lower spin balls like the old two piece ball always was .    

[DMoriarty]

What you say there is not the case. Big hitters did not play two piece hard balls not because they couldn't control them at high swing speeds but because they felt they had little control with them on approach shots once they hit the green and particularly with chipping and putting. Essentially even a bit hitter could not spin the hard ball enough to suck it back, among other drawbacks, in their opinions.

For the sake of this discussion, I will accept your correction as fact:  The sole reason better players did not play these balls was because they not control them on approaches and around the greens.   For the sake of this discussion, I stand corrected.

Still, my point remains exactly the same:  Thirty years ago, the better player did not play the low spin ball because they were too hard to CONTROL.   To put it another way:  The old low spin balls were not technologically advanced enough to provide the better players with adequate control around the greens.  They were therefore offered the newer players no practical or usuable advantage.

When you say the two piece ball wasn't technologically advanced enough it sort of makes me wonder how old you are David. How old are you? Were you playing two piece balls forty years ago?  

Not old enough to have played the two-piece ball 40 years ago, but definitely old enough to have played (and seen played) the the distance balls which existed prior to the recent technology explosion.   There were very good reasons that better players avoided hard, low spin balls.  

[Jason Topp]

If a player is fitted with an optimal ball and driver and hits it straight, does driving distance increase in a linear fashion with swing speed or is there some sort of acceleration effect?

I have always assumed that a player who hits it 250 would get the same percentage increase from optimization and technology advances, but that the advantage is less simply because he does not swing as fast.  I do not know whether that is a correct assumption.  Has anyone seen any data addressing this issue?

[TEPaul]

"This is where you lose me, Tom.    I think everything I am saying is in complete agreement with your report of information from the USGA.  If I am mistaken about this, then I’d really appreciate if you or someone else could specifically tell me where what I am saying is in contradiction to what the USGA is saying."

OK, once again, as the distance spike relates to the golf ball ONLY what caused the distance spike among elite players was simply that the elite player beginning about ten years ago switched to a golf ball that had the same distance characteristics as the low spin two piece ball that had been around for about 40 years that almost all handcap players used but virtually no elite players used. As it relates to the golf ball that's what caused the distance spike.

If you agree with that about the golf ball then you agree with what I've been saying on here for a couple of years and what the USGA confirmed AGAIN a week or so ago.

I am not talking about the COR of driver faces or so-called computer generated "optimization" of player and equipment, just the low spin new age golf ball's distance compared to the distance of the low spin old two piece hard ball.

[Garland Bayley]

...
There was a very good reason that the better players did not use hard two-piece balls:  Forty years ago, the better players could not control the Pinnacles, especially at high swing speeds.   In other words, 40 years ago these low spin, hard cover balls were not yet technologically advanced enough to be of any practical use to the better players--  especially with 1966 woods.  
...

This is nonsense. The old two piece balls would spin off the driver, i.e. "high swing speeds", approximately the same as the new balls, e.g., Pro V1. There has been no change in control, which is the result of spin, between the old two piece balls and the new balls.If a duffer like me could control the old ball 35 years about while hitting it long distances, the pros certainly could. As usual, Tom Paul is correct.

[DMoriarty]

A controllable low spin ball? What do you mean by that?

I mean a ball that the better players are comfortable with in all aspects of their game;  driving, approaching, chipping, pitching and putting.  

But the point is that old two piece ball would go app as far if hit with today's equipment as a ProV type today. That was essentially what the USGA confirmed a week or so ago. That's what you need to come to understand and admit.

Tom, What you don't seem to understand is that I have understood this and accepted it not only throughout this entire discussion, but also in the dozens of our previous discussions.  Again, I am not disagreeing with you about this.  Rather, I am only disagreeing with the level of significance you place on this observation.  

Again, what created most of this distance spike as it relates to the golf ball ONLY was that elite players switched about ten years ago from the old high spin balls to the new lower spin balls like the old two piece ball always was.  

Tom, you are leaving out one crucial step here.  The harder hitting players did not switch until the low spin ball was greatly improved by TECHNOLOGY.   The new low spin ball was much more technolically advanced than the old low spin ball in that the new low spin ball was not only long, but also more controllable on approaches and around greens.  

Not only that, but the better players could now take a much faster swing without the ball balooning like the high spin ball they had been using.  

This technological breakthrough was huge, and has been a primary force behind the imbalance we now see in the game.  

[TEPaul]

"Still, my point remains exactly the same:  Thirty years ago, the better player did not play the low spin ball because they were too hard to CONTROL.  To put it another way:  The old low spin balls were not technologically advanced enough to provide the better players with adequate control around the greens."  

David:

That's what I've been telling you for a couple of years. Control around the green has nothing whatsoever to do with distance or a distance comparison which is what we've been discussing here endlessly. The old low spinning two piece ball would've gone app as far as the new age low spinning ProV type. Go back and read again what I've been saying for years and the USGA has confirmed---as it relates to the ball it was the switch that created the distance spike. The elite players switched because the ball feels almost as soft to them around the green as the old high spinning soft balls they used to use.

You've been saying for years that this new ProV type ball has created some recent "explosive effect" over 109. It hasn't. It's no different distance-wise to an elite player than the old low spinning two piece hard ball.

[DMoriarty]

If a player is fitted with an optimal ball and driver and hits it straight, does driving distance increase in a linear fashion with swing speed or is there some sort of acceleration effect?

I have always assumed that a player who hits it 250 would get the same percentage increase from optimization and technology advances, but that the advantage is less simply because he does not swing as fast.  I do not know whether that is a correct assumption.  Has anyone seen any data addressing this issue?

TomPaul apparently talked to the USGA and they told him that the increase is linear.  While I didnt necessarily see it this way, it does sound reasonable to me.  

But even if this is true, keep in mind that different balls will have different linear distance projections. and will start at different point, so whether any new ball benefits a particular golfer depends upon the golfers swing speed.   So a ball that helps a player at a high swing speed might actually hurt a slow swinging player, compared to what he is currently playing.  Make sense, or should I pull my chart out again?  

[Garland Bayley]

...
Tom, you are leaving out one crucial step here.  The harder hitting players did not switch until the low spin ball was greatly improved by TECHNOLOGY.   The new low spin ball was much more technolically advanced than the old low spin ball in that the new low spin ball was not only long, but also more controllable on approaches and around greens.  
...

So it turns out David has finally made his statements about controllability clear and David and Tom were making the same point. Sorry for my interjection.

[TEPaul]

"Tom, you are leaving out one crucial step here.  The harder hitting players did not switch until the low spin ball was greatly improved by TECHNOLOGY.  The new low spin ball was much more technolically advanced than the old low spin ball in that the new low spin ball was not only long, but also more controllable on approaches and around greens."

David:

You have got to be joking. How many years now have I been saying the new low spin ProV ball has the distance characteristics of the old two piece ball and the soft feel of the old high spinning soft ball?

How many years have I told you Frank Thomas warned them that sooner or later the manufacturers were going to do what had been thought to be impossible before---eg combine the soft feel of the high spinning three piece ball with the distance characteristics of the old low spin two piece hard ball?

I've been saying that on here for years now David. How could you have missed that?  

[TEPaul]

"So it turns out David has finally made his statements about controllability clear and David and Tom were making the same point. Sorry for my interjection."

Garland:

You are absolutely wrong about that. Apparently David Moriarty was under the impression that elite players in the past did not use low spinning two piece balls because they were not controllable when hit at high swing speeds. That's a pretty big difference from the fact that they didn't use them only because they felt too hard to them around the green which both me and some others on here have been saying for years now on here.

He's been saying for a year or more that this new ProV type ball in the last 10-12 years created some "explosive effect" or some sudden "out of balance" distance differential to lower swing speed players. It did nothing of the kind. The old low spin two piece hard ball that's been around for forty years could've been hit just as far by the big hitting elite player 40 years ago (if using todays clubs), and that's always been my point. The switch in the last 10-12 years is what did it not some new age increased distance ball that was longer than anything produced before. This is what I've been saying for years. I just can't imagine why David missed that or what he thought I was trying to say.

[DMoriarty]

TEPaul said:

That's what I've been telling you for a couple of years. . . . Go back and read again what I've been saying for years and the USGA has confirmed---as it relates to the ball it was the switch that created the distance spike. The elite players switched because the ball feels almost as soft to them around the green as the old high spinning soft balls they used to use.

Tom, you have been saying this for years, but if you go back and reread my posts you will see that this has never been my point of disagreement.  That is in large part of why this conversation has been so frustrating for me.   I've in large part been trying to convince you of this.

At least we are finally on the same page with at least this part.   That being said . . .

You've been saying for years that this new ProV type ball has created some recent "explosive effect" over 109. It hasn't. It's no different distance-wise to an elite player than the old low spinning two piece hard ball.

Actually Tom, these new balls have lead to a distance explosion among the elite players; and there is a huge difference distance-wise between their drives then and their drives now.   This is because the elite players did not use the two-piece ball 15 years ago.  Rather they used a high spin ball.   While the old two piece ball may have been long, it was unusuable to them for other reasons.  Yet you insist on comparing the distance with new ball to the distance with an old ball that wasn't yet good enough to be used by the the better players.  

I am not interested in what distance the elite players could have hit it 20 years ago if all they cared about was distance.  To the contrary, I am interested in what the elite players actually used-- the state of the art at the time-- and what they used were high spin balls, not Pinnacles.  

[DMoriarty]

You have got to be joking. How many years now have I been saying the new low spin ProV ball has the distance characteristics of the old two piece ball and the soft feel of the old high spinning soft ball?

How many years have I told you Frank Thomas warned them that sooner or later the manufacturers were going to do what had been thought to be impossible before---eg combine the soft feel of the high spinning three piece ball with the distance characteristics of the old low spin two piece hard ball?

I've been saying that on here for years now David. How could you have missed that?  

I have not missed it Tom, you have been saying this for years.   Yet you still deny that this technological innovation has thrown the game out of balance.  This is where we disagree.  

Because of this technological innovation, better players now hit balls which travel much further than the old state-of-the-art golf balls they were using.   This technology has lead to a veritable distance explosion.  

[TEPaul]

"Actually Tom, these new balls have lead to a distance explosion among the elite players; and there is a huge difference distance-wise between their drives then and their drives now.  This is because the elite players did not use the two-piece ball 15 years ago.  Rather they used a high spin ball.  While the old two piece ball may have been long, it was unusuable to them for other reasons.  Yet you insist on comparing the distance with new ball to the distance with an old ball that wasn't yet good enough to be used by the the better players."

Once again, David, this is precisely what I've been telling you for years, and so have others. But yet you've been trying to maintain that this ProV type ball was longer than any ball that came before it and that it put the big hitter "out of balance" distance-wise with the average hitter. Distance-wise the old two piece ball that's been around for 40 years could do precisely the same thing distance-wise. If we are talking about the distance capablity of golf balls 5-10-15-20-30-40 years ago that's what you need to understand and admit.

We all know WHY they switched and it had nothing to do with some new distance capability of golf balls as you've been implying on here for so long. That distance capability had been around for about 40 years and legal under the existing ODS rules and regs from 1976 on.

[DMoriarty]

Yes, Garland, TomPaul and I are saying something very close to the same thing.  

The main difference between us now is that TomPaul doesnt think it reasonable to call what we have seen in the past 12 years a "distance explosion" because, had the elite players been willing to play a low-spin ball with inferior control and feel, then he could have been hitting it a long ways.  

I do see a very definite distance explosion, but then I'd rather look what the elite players actually used, rather than speculate how far they might have hit it had they had only played an inferior golf ball (in their opinion.)

[DMoriarty]

Once again, David, this is precisely what I've been telling you for years, and so have others. But yet you've been trying to maintain that this ProV type ball was longer than any ball that came before it and that it put the big hitter "out of balance" distance-wise with the average hitter. Distance-wise the old two piece ball that's been around for 40 years could do precisely the same thing distance-wise. If we are talking about the distance capablity of golf balls 5-10-15-20-30-40 years ago that's what you need to understand and admit.

We all know WHY they switched and it had nothing to do with some new distance capability of golf balls as you've been implying on here for so long. That distance capability had been around for about 40 years and legal under the existing ODS rules and regs from 1976 on.

You are completely misrepresenting what I have been saying, Tom, but never mind.  

At least we now agree that:

Over the past 10 or 15 years, technological innovations in ball construction have lead to a distance explosion among the game's elite players.

[TEPaul]

"I have not missed it Tom, you have been saying this for years.  Yet you still deny that this technological innovation has thrown the game out of balance.  This is where we disagree."  

"Because of this technological innovation, better players now hit balls which travel much further than the old state-of-the-art golf balls they were using.  This technology has lead to a veritable distance explosion."

Thrown the game out of balance?? That's you're take on this, not mine.  On the one hand you have a hard low spin distance ball that's been around and LEGAL distance-wise for forty years and a soft ball that's been around and LEGAL distance-wise forever. The manufacturers finally combine two long time LEGAL golf ball characteristics and you think big hitters are now out of balance with average hitters.

I submit, as the USGA said the other day that players of all swing speeds now have distance differentials that are linear and proportional distance-wise to their swing speed because for the first time they are all using golf balls with the same distance characteristics. Something, by the way, that was not true until about 10-12 years ago. Obviously the old high spinning three piece ball was effectively way under the ODS limitation that goes back to 1976 compared to the two piece hard ball.

One could just as easily say that big hitters were limited in relation to the average hitter distance-wise and consequently the average hitter was "out of balance" distance-wise with the big hitter regarding what was actually legal distance-wise for so long.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()