[Ted Kramer]

There's gotta be more to the Pro V1 story than just a success in making a ball that has low spin off the driver and still gets pretty good spin off the irons and around the green.  Whether its an exponential increase (getting more than 10% more carry going from 110 to 121 mph) or that the old balls got 10% from 90 to 99 but less than 10% from 110 to 121, is irrelevant, is pretty obvious to most that it has benefitted those with higher swing speeds quite a bit more than those with low to average swing speeds.

Couldn't the reason why the higher swing speeds have benefitted most be becasuse they were the ones being "penalized" by the older balls?

For arguments sake:
If 100mphs got you 240 yards with a balata and 110 mphs got you 250 yards the 10% increase in ss was only netting you a 4% increase in distance.

Now just assume that at 100mphs you weren't encountering any of the negative spin that the balata created. It might be fair to say that you were using that ball at close to its maximum efficiency.

With the new ball your 100 mphs still doesn't encounter too much spin, but neither does the 110mph swing. So now the 110mph swing gets the 10% increase over the 100mph swing and thus gains the complete 10% or 24 yards by switching as opposed to the 10 yards offered by the balata.

The higher ss players are aided more because the new ball works at an efficient level for those higher swing speeds too. You aren't going to gain yards by switching balls if you're already "maximizing" what the first ball can give you and don't have any more juice.

-Ted

[TEPaul]

Ted:

You have totally got it. I just can't imagine why so many have failed to grasp what you just said. I had a post on this thread that was just about the same as yours but before I could post it the website titled. This is obviously also why the USGA Tech Center says the distance increase of these new balls in relation to swing speed is linear.

[Ted Kramer]

Ted:

You have totally got it. I just can't imagine why so many have failed to grasp what you just said. I had a post on this thread that was just about the same as yours but before I could post it the website titled. This is obviously also why the USGA Tech Center says the distance increase of these new balls in relation to swing speed is linear.

Tom,
I had the chance to talk about some of this stuff with someone who is more knowlegdeable than I am . . .that conversation got me thinking about a lot of things and really helped me to gain a clearer picture of the issue  

-Ted

[Doug Siebert]

Couldn't the reason why the higher swing speeds have benefitted most be becasuse they were the ones being "penalized" by the older balls?

For arguments sake:
If 100mphs got you 240 yards with a balata and 110 mphs got you 250 yards the 10% increase in ss was only netting you a 4% increase in distance.

Now just assume that at 100mphs you weren't encountering any of the negative spin that the balata created. It might be fair to say that you were using that ball at close to its maximum efficiency.

With the new ball your 100 mphs still doesn't encounter too much spin, but neither does the 110mph swing. So now the 110mph swing gets the 10% increase over the 100mph swing and thus gains the complete 10% or 24 yards by switching as opposed to the 10 yards offered by the balata.

The higher ss players are aided more because the new ball works at an efficient level for those higher swing speeds too. You aren't going to gain yards by switching balls if you're already "maximizing" what the first ball can give you and don't have any more juice.

-Ted

That's pretty much what I was saying when I said that you could either get an exponential increase with the new ball, or it looked exponential because it wasn't linear with balata because the ballflight was so different (due to spin rate, launch angle and dimple pattern)

That said, I think it is VERY BAD for the game to increase the gap between those with slower and faster swing speeds, whether it can be looked at as "fixing" a defect in how the ball used to work or not.  Higher swing speeds confer a lot of advantages on a player beyond hitting further, you can escape rough better, put more spin on the ball, hit it higher (to go over trees or up hills)  Some suggest there is even an advantage to it in the short game (maybe for certain bunker shots or the risky but fun full swing 20 yard lob wedge)  So I don't know that an even larger distance advantage is warranted, it changes the balance of the game as it has existed for at least a century.  Like Isidor Rabi said when the muon was discovered after physicists thought they knew all the elementary particles that existed, "who ordered that?"

Rather than trying to figure out how to increase the efficiency of swingspeed to distance at the highest ranges of swingspeeds, I wish the ballmakers were forced by the rules to concentrate on the doing it at the lower to middle ranges of swing speed.

Just as a hypothetical, say I came up with and patented two advances for golf balls, but I'm willing to license one and only one to each ball vendor.  Advance X does nothing until you reach a swing speed of 115 mph, then it adds up to 20 yards of carry distance as your swing speed increases.  Advance Y adds about 5 yards of carry distance starting from about 50 mph, but the effect rapidly diminishes to zero once you reach 100 mph.  Which do you think they would choose to license from me?  I think they'd choose the 20 yard advance, even though it would help only a small portion of golfers, and then only on their tee shots.  They'd probably figure that seeing Bubba hit 390 yard drives would sell to Joe Sixpack, even though the other ball is the only one that would actually make a difference for poor Joe.

[TEPaul]

"That said, I think it is VERY BAD for the game to increase the gap between those with slower and faster swing speeds, whether it can be looked at as "fixing" a defect in how the ball used to work or not."  

DougS:

I'm very happy we've finally gotten to that point and that opinion in this discussion. I understand perfectly what you're saying but unfortunately I don't agree with it at all. IF, with these new balls, distance has finally reached a linear relationship through the swing speed spectrum what could be more equitable than that?


"Rather than trying to figure out how to increase the efficiency of swingspeed to distance at the highest ranges of swingspeeds, I wish the ballmakers were forced by the rules to concentrate on the doing it at the lower to middle ranges of swing speed."

One could very logically say that was done many years ago when most all slower swing speed players began using low spin rate balls (Pinnacle et al). The fact that most all high swing speed players began to use them too (ProV type ball et al) ONLY in the last decade should only mean that all swing speeds are now in a linear and equitable relationship distance-wise.

Or looked at from the other side of the coin and the other side of the factual evolution, up until about a decade ago most all lower swing speed players used an ODS legal golf ball that was very different distance-wise from the ODS legal golf ball that almost all high swing speed players used.

Because of that the swing speed to distance relationship across the swing speed spectrum was not particularly linear. Now that all golfers are using the SAME type of golf ball (low spin) the swing speed to distance relationship across the swing speed spectrum is NOW linear.

Again, what could be more equitable than that?

[Jason Topp]

DougS:

I'm very happy we've finally gotten to that point and that opinion in this discussion. I understand perfectly what you're saying but unfortunately I don't agree with it at all. IF, with these new balls, distance has finally reached a linear relationship through the swing speed spectrum what could be more equitable than that?

I think the "equity" viewpoint is a reasonable position, at least if we are not dealing with existing golf courses and their alteration to cope with increased distance associated with that “equity.”  I see several downsides to the current state of technology, however:

1.   Nearly every classic course that desires to hold major championships is being altered to reduce the fun of playing the course for all but the most accomplished player.  I imagine it used to be a thrill to play Augusta from the same tees as those used in the Masters and one could have an enjoyable day on the course.  Now, from my understanding, it is a punishing test for a scratch player and someone who is not close to that standard faces the choice of playing a very short course from the front tees or a very punishing one from the back tees.  It would be a thrill to have either chance, but not as much of a thrill as playing from the same tees as the professionals and feeling like you have the chance.

2.   “Equity” or a “linear relationship” does not answer the question of how much advantage a longer hitter should have over a shorter hitter.  A five mile an hour swing speed could carry with it a 5, 10, 25 or 50 yard distance advantage with very different impacts on the importance of swing speed in the game.  I believe that the advantage currently gained is so large so as to disprportionally impact other aspects of the game.  

These concerns could be resolved by

1.   Creating a competition ball – which is what really existed prior to the pro-V-1 due to limitations in technology rather than limitations in the rules.

2.   Reducung the linear advantage of a longer hitter by reducing the overall distance of the ball by a fixed percentage.

3.   Deciding that these concerns are not important.

I’m in favor of either option 1 or 2.

[TEPaul]

Jason;

You make some very good points. Not perfect ones but very thoughtful ones

However, you said;

“Equity” or a “linear relationship” does not answer the question of how much advantage a longer hitter should have over a shorter hitter."

It doesn't?? Why doesn't it? What could be more NATURALLY equitable than that? Why would anyone want to technologically micro-manage the distance results of physical ability.

If, for instance, someone with twice the swing speed of someone else hit the ball twice as far, what is inequitable about that?

[RSLivingston_III]

With two balls in the system, how would the handicap system work?

[Garland Bayley]

Let's look at equitable in a different sense.

In that past, I believe there was a linear relationship between the ball spin and the club face angle.

Those playing high spin balls had higher spin rates off the driver AND off the wedge and it was proportional to the angle of the clubface.

Those playing low spin balls had lower spin rates off the driver AND off the wedge and it was proportional to the angle of the club face.

Historically with all balls this relationship held.

What could be more equitable than that?

The new balls have destroyed this relationship! I call that unequitable!

[Ted Kramer]

Let's look at equitable in a different sense.

In that past, I believe there was a linear relationship between the ball spin and the club face angle.

Those playing high spin balls had higher spin rates off the driver AND off the wedge and it was proportional to the angle of the clubface.

Those playing low spin balls had lower spin rates off the driver AND off the wedge and it was proportional to the angle of the club face.

Historically with all balls this relationship held.

What could be more equitable than that?

The new balls have destroyed this relationship! I call that unequitable!

Very creative, impressive!
I wonder if that is true.

-Ted

[TEPaul]

"With two balls in the system, how would the handicap system work?"

Ralph:

It's really not just two balls in the system---we actually and effectively had that in golf for years. The point was those two types of balls were all under a single ODS system and a single and unified I&B standard.

What a competition ball would be under the I&B rules and regs of the R&A/USGA is a ball that would be under a second and separate ODS and effectively a second I&B standard.

It's true that the R&A/USGA have said in no uncertain terms they do not want two I&B standards, that they only want a single and unified I&B standard.

Why is that?

Partly it may be that that's just the way it's always been and the other part really does have a lot to do with the problems it would create with the handicap system, particularly the US handicap system. Another important part, to golf administrators anyway, is two standards would create additional problems in administering competitions.

Could the handicap system handle two separate standards? Sure it could, it would just be harder to do and it would be considerably less effective.

Or it just might have to be altered to accomodate two standards better. There's no question it would be easier for the US handicap system to handle two I&B standards (two ball ODSs) if the US handicap system went to the CONGU system of just medal or stroke play rounds for handicap purposes and did away with recreational rounds being used for handicaps. Some might say that golfers could just post whether they's played in competition or recreationally but I can guarantee that would be tough to actually do effectively.

Even the question of who the "competition" ball applied to or which competitions it would be used in becomes problematic.

It's not that two separate ODSs couldn't be done, it's just that it would be much harder to administer throughout golf. Anything can be done. The question is how effectively can it be done?

There's no question at all that from the standpoint of golf administration, including handicapping, a single I&B standard is the best way. It's not the only way---just the best way.

[TEPaul]

"What could be more equitable than that?"

Garland:

I'll tell you what could be more equitable than that. It would be legislating that players of any swing speed could put whatever spin rate their swings speeds naturally put on golf balls with basically similar spin rate.

[Garland Bayley]

Tom,

I don't understand what you just wrote. Perhaps examples would help me.

[TEPaul]

"The new balls have destroyed this relationship! I call that unequitable!"

Garland:

What relationship have the new balls destroyed? Do you mean the new balls destroyed the fact that most all high swing speed players used to use high spin rate balls and most all slow swing speed players didn't?

[Garland Bayley]

Tom,

The relationship destroyed is the spin rate to clubface angle proportionality.

[TEPaul]

Garland;

Why is that, and what's the significance of it to a linear and  equitable distance result in relation to swing speed (which the low spin rate ball effectively results in for all golfers)?

[Garland Bayley]

Garland;

Why is that

Because the new balls have been manufactured with multiple covers that react to the ball differently based on the angle of the clubface.  The thin outermost cover will slip downwards past the next cover when stuck with a high angled club face, thereby creating lots of spin. When struck by a low angled clubface, it will not slip and help create spin.

, and what's the significance of it to a linear and  equitable distance result in relation to swing speed (which the low spin rate ball effectively results in for all golfers)?

Without this cover technology, high spin balls would "balloon" and fly less distance. Low spin balls never exhibited such a ballooning effect and would fly farther distances.

[Jason Topp]

Jason;

“Equity” or a “linear relationship” does not answer the question of how much advantage a longer hitter should have over a shorter hitter."

It doesn't?? Why doesn't it? What could be more NATURALLY equitable than that? Why would anyone want to technologically micro-manage the distance results of physical ability.

Tom - The micromanagement has already occurred when the USGA set its COR standard for the driver and the ODS standard for the ball.  Apparently, the result of that management is a linear relationship such that (very approximate and for ease of math) a 100 MPH swing produces about a 250 yard drive and a 120 MPH swing produces a 300 yard drive.  In other words about 2.5 yards per MPH of clubhead speed.

There is nothing magic about this figure.  The standard could be adjusted to reduce distance by 10 percent, resulting in a 120 MPH swing going 270 yards and a 100 MPH swing going 225 yards, or by 20 percent with resulting numbers of 240 and 200.  Similar adjustments could be made upwards as well.

Another alternative is to create a ball that has a linear relationship at competitive swing speeds with the driver, probably between 100 and 140 MPH.  As an example - one yard per MPH with a 100 MPH swing going 250 like it does now, 110 going 260 and 120 going 270.  This approach would greatly alter the relative advantage of swing speed but still involve a linear relationship.

In each case, the relationship is linear and "equitable" under your definition, but the difference in driving distance (and its resultant relative importance to success) is changed.


 

[TEPaul]

"Without this cover technology, high spin balls would "balloon" and fly less distance. Low spin balls never exhibited such a ballooning effect and would fly farther distances."

Jason:

I think most all of us realize that. I know I've realized that for about 30 or more years now but I just don't see what your point is regarding some kind of inequity with distance through the swing speed spectrum with the new ball. If a golf ball effectively has a linear relationship in distance to the swing speeds applied to that ball, I just can't quite see where you see the inequity in that.

The point is those old high spin ball only ballooned as they did, and obvously lost significant carry distance ONLY when hit by high swing speed players. Slower swingers using that high spin ball could not hit them hard enough to create that ballooning effect and consequently weren't hurt distance-wise relative to their swing speed, the way the fast swingers were.

[TEPaul]

"There is nothing magic about this figure.  The standard could be adjusted to reduce distance by 10 percent, resulting in a 120 MPH swing going 270 yards and a 100 MPH swing going 225 yards, or by 20 percent with resulting numbers of 240 and 200.  Similar adjustments could be made upwards as well."

Jason:

Of course it could. But the linear relationship still stays the same. I don't know who would have a problem with that. To me that would be a rollback that's equitable across the swing speed spectrum.

The point is that just because the ProV goes farther for everyone in a linear relationship to their swing speed means to me the ProV is equitable distance-wise across the swing speed spectrum.

Does the ball go too far for everyone in relation to their swing speed? Well maybe so and I'd have no problem if everyone got rolled back equitably distance-wise in relation to their swing speed.

[Jason Topp]

"Without this cover technology, high spin balls would "balloon" and fly less distance. Low spin balls never exhibited such a ballooning effect and would fly farther distances."

Jason:

I think most all of us realize that. I know I've realized that for about 30 or more years now but I just don't see what your point is regarding some kind of inequity with distance through the swing speed spectrum with the new ball. If a golf ball effectively has a linear relationship in distance to the swing speeds applied to that ball, I just can't quite see where you see the inequity in that.

The point is those old high spin ball only ballooned as they did, and obvously lost significant carry distance ONLY when hit by high swing speed players. Slower swingers using that high spin ball could not hit them hard enough to create that ballooning effect and consequently weren't hurt distance-wise relative to their swing speed, the way the fast swingers were.

Tom - I do not think you are quoting me on this one.

[Jason Topp]

"There is nothing magic about this figure.  The standard could be adjusted to reduce distance by 10 percent, resulting in a 120 MPH swing going 270 yards and a 100 MPH swing going 225 yards, or by 20 percent with resulting numbers of 240 and 200.  Similar adjustments could be made upwards as well."

Jason:

Of course it could. But the linear relationship still stays the same. I don't know who would have a problem with that. To me that would be a rollback that's equitable across the swing speed spectrum.

The point is that just because the ProV goes farther for everyone in a linear relationship to their swing speed means to me the ProV is equitable distance-wise across the swing speed spectrum.

Does the ball go too far for everyone in relation to their swing speed? Well maybe so and I'd have no problem if everyone got rolled back equitably distance-wise in relation to their swing speed.

I don't think we are really that far apart on our views.

[Garland Bayley]

"Without this cover technology, high spin balls would "balloon" and fly less distance. Low spin balls never exhibited such a ballooning effect and would fly farther distances."

Jason:

I think most all of us realize that. I know I've realized that for about 30 or more years now but I just don't see what your point is regarding some kind of inequity with distance through the swing speed spectrum with the new ball. ...

I assume this was intended for me. I am not trying to make a point "regarding some kind of inequity with distance through the swing speed spectrum with the new ball."

My point is that until the technology of the Pro V style balls came into existence, the entire history of the golf ball had balls whose spin was directly proportional to the angle of the clubface.

This change is inequitable, because the Pro V eliminates the disadvantage of the old balls for the low handicappers who use spin to get the ball close to the hole, while giving nothing to high handicappers who can't get the ball close to the hole with anything other than a putter (and often fail with that club too ).

IMHO to keep the traditions of the game.
No putting croquet style.
No putting with the the club anchored to your body other than to your hands.
No balls whose spin rates are disproportional to the angle of the clubface.

[Brent Hutto]

Because the new balls have been manufactured with multiple covers that react to the ball differently based on the angle of the clubface.  The thin outermost cover will slip downwards past the next cover when stuck with a high angled club face, thereby creating lots of spin. When struck by a low angled clubface, it will not slip and help create spin.

The covers on 3-piece and 4-piece solid-core balls never slip relative to each other (motion in that plane is technically referred to as "shear" rather than "slip"). If they did so even once it would damage the golf ball permanently.

The way in which the different cover properties affect shots with different clubs is that with a large loft angle, only the softness of the outer portion of the cover matters much in determining the spin produced. With small loft angles, the softness of almost the entire ball matters in determining the spin rate. With in between loft angles, the softness of an in between thickness matters.

Even two-piece balls are designed to take advantage of different softness for the cover and core. By choosing the proportions of those material properties you can make high or low spinning two-piece balls. The third and fourth discrete cover layers gives more degrees of freedom for this same design parameter.

In general, unless you're talking about a wet or dirty clubface it is misleading to imagine shear or slippage between the outer surface of the ball and the clubface or between different portions of the ball's anatomy. That's not how golf balls react when they're hit by golf clubs, even if it seems common sensical that they would do so.

[Brent Hutto]

Tom - The micromanagement has already occurred when the USGA set its COR standard for the driver and the ODS standard for the ball.  Apparently, the result of that management is a linear relationship such that (very approximate and for ease of math) a 100 MPH swing produces about a 250 yard drive and a 120 MPH swing produces a 300 yard drive.  In other words about 2.5 yards per MPH of clubhead speed.

There is nothing magic about this figure.  The standard could be adjusted to reduce distance by 10 percent, resulting in a 120 MPH swing going 270 yards and a 100 MPH swing going 225 yards, or by 20 percent with resulting numbers of 240 and 200.  Similar adjustments could be made upwards as well.

Jason,

Not only is there "nothing magic" about the 2.5 yard per MPH rule of thumb you quote, in fact there to my knowledge nothing in the USGA ball specification that addresses in any way the relationship between clubhead speed and distance. AFAIK, the USGA conformance test takes place at a single clubhead speed and there are no constraints expressed or implied concerning how the ball reacts at different clubhead speeds.

Don't confuse contingent facts of history and detailed observation of past and existing golf balls (from which arises that frequently invoked 2.5 yard/MPH relationship) with the ball rules. The behavior of actual golf balls is complex, the rules are quite simple.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()