Ohio Golf Assoc. one ball

« **Reply #25 on:** August 23, 2006, 06:31:37 AM »

Quote from: Jim Sweeney on August 22, 2006, 11:25:10 PM

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.

Decades of data yes, but wasn't there a period when they did not take into account some important factors which skewed their numbers...wasn't it increasing clubhead speeds? Whatever it was they later admitted they made a mistake. It seemed they were always one step behind the manufacturers. Is it possible they're still behind?

« **Reply #26 on:** August 23, 2006, 08:17:59 AM »

Spoke with my brother today after O.G.A. tournament's first round.
To answer a few questions: Dave's swing speed with driver was 109 with irons 91 his ball speed was 154 with driver his rpm was 2980 his total distance for drives was 291 yds with prov and 281 with tournament ball.
He thinks the testing company was GOLFTECH but was unsure of exact name.
2 examples from play - He hit 3 of 4 par 5's in two and the other (570 yds.) he hit driver, 3wd to 10 yds short.
on a 290 yd. par 4 he drove the green.
Again he mentions that the ball putts well.
The biggest difference that he saw was around the greens. Pitching and chipping had to be thought out because of the lack of as much spin reaction in these shots.
He found neglible difference in his iron shots.
Dave said he will try to get more 1st hand feedback from some of the longer hitters today, but himself feels as if there is a wider differential in yardage as swindspeed increases, at least with driver.
Dave is 4 shots back in the SR. division, so with a good round today he can win it! Good luck to big brother!!

« **Reply #27 on:** August 23, 2006, 08:41:50 AM »

Tom MCW:

I can't answer your questions. However, I know for a fact that the USGA has decades of data on ball performance at clubhead speeds across a wide range up to the fastest speeds recorded, as well as the effects of changes in loft, weight, etc.

I don't recall the USGA ever admitting to anything like you suggest. A few years ago they did adjust the ODS test by increasing the clubhead speed component to (I believe) 120mph, but the ODS standard was also increased to reflect the effect of this adjustment. In other words the test was modified, but the effect was a wash.

For rhetorical purposes, let's concede that the USGA doesn't know everything and something slipped through the cracks. That's not really my question. In the quotation (I'm relying on memory here) Jim Popa says that "the USGA said there was only a five yard difference. We know that's not true (or right, or accurate, or something like that.) Is he implying that the USGA has lied about its test results, and does anyone here agree? If so, what fungible evidence does anyone have to support the assertion?

« **Reply #28 on:** August 23, 2006, 10:08:45 AM »

Quote from: Tom Roewer on August 22, 2006, 09:40:22 AM

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

Corey Pavin? Tom - Corey Pavin was one of the best 10 golfers on the planet until distances started going wild in the late 90's. He has one victory in the last 10 years and (I think) only one top 10 this year - He did win the event. The guy has a magical short game but he is one of the poster childs for what distance has caused. As for Fred Funk, he is the straightest driver on tour, has a great short game, is a good putter is immune to pressure and has two wins in the last seven years. The description I just wrote could have been written about Calvin Peete in the early 80's when distance did not matter as much and he was winning several times a year or even Pavin in the early 90's when he was winning several times a year.

Let me reverse the question. Name me a young gun today who is really successful and a bunter.

« **Reply #29 on:** August 23, 2006, 10:32:42 AM »

Quote from: David Wigler on August 23, 2006, 10:08:45 AM

Let me reverse the question. Name me a young gun today who is really successful and a bunter.

Bunter is a relative term but if you define bunter as the bottom quartile in driving distance (i.e. 150 or lower) then Luke Donald is the answer. His average "bunt" is 283.3 yds - only 12 yds farther than fellow bunter Fred Funk.

« **Reply #30 on:** August 23, 2006, 10:40:11 AM »

David,

Corey's problems have not been due to the increased length. He had emotional and mental assurredance problems and dropped out for a while to basically go find himself.

Golf Digest did an article on him a couple of years ago that told the story.

« **Reply #31 on:** August 23, 2006, 11:44:24 AM »

Quote from: Garland Bayley on August 23, 2006, 10:40:11 AM

David,

Corey's problems have not been due to the increased length. He had emotional and mental assurredance problems and dropped out for a while to basically go find himself.

Golf Digest did an article on him a couple of years ago that told the story.

I would add to this that Pavin not only got older and passed what are the peak yrs. for most golfers, but performed equipment AND swing changes. History tells us that once a golfer goes bad because of going down that road, they often never come back to their orginal level of excellence. Laying all of his problems at the feet of other players hitting it farther would be at least somewhat misleading, IMO.

« **Reply #32 on:** August 23, 2006, 11:47:24 AM »

Quote from: Tom Roewer on August 23, 2006, 08:17:59 AM

Spoke with my brother today after O.G.A. tournament's first round.
To answer a few questions: Dave's swing speed with driver was 109 with irons 91 his ball speed was 154 with driver his rpm was 2980 his total distance for drives was 291 yds with prov and 281 with tournament ball.
He thinks the testing company was GOLFTECH but was unsure of exact name.
2 examples from play - He hit 3 of 4 par 5's in two and the other (570 yds.) he hit driver, 3wd to 10 yds short.
on a 290 yd. par 4 he drove the green.
Again he mentions that the ball putts well.
The biggest difference that he saw was around the greens. Pitching and chipping had to be thought out because of the lack of as much spin reaction in these shots.
He found neglible difference in his iron shots.
Dave said he will try to get more 1st hand feedback from some of the longer hitters today, but himself feels as if there is a wider differential in yardage as swindspeed increases, at least with driver.
Dave is 4 shots back in the SR. division, so with a good round today he can win it! Good luck to big brother!!

This sounds an awful lot like a Noodle/Solo/Laddie type ball to me. If so, I think that the problems that Dave points to with spinning the ball around the green are significant. These are shots that were playable with a balata ball before the distance increases, AND justifiably separate highly skilled players from those of us who are less skilled. To give that up for a 10 yd. distance reduction for long-ball hitters seems like a questionable trade to me.

« **Reply #33 on:** August 23, 2006, 12:01:32 PM »

Tom R,

Thanks for the further information. The distances seem to be quite a lot higher than your first post mentioned. Why is that? These ones seem more reasonable based on his swing speed. If they are total distance, he must have got 30 or 40 yards of roll out at that swing speed.

Based on the on-course experience, it doesn't look like the ball has any significant impact on playing the length of the course.

If the ball is the Volvik, as has been suggested, it's supposed to have superior spin and feel around the green. And, if it decreases distance through increasing spin, it should be better around the green not worse.

« **Reply #34 on:** August 23, 2006, 12:05:35 PM »

Quote from: Wayne_Kozun on August 23, 2006, 10:32:42 AM

Quote from: David Wigler on August 23, 2006, 10:08:45 AM
Let me reverse the question. Name me a young gun today who is really successful and a bunter.
Bunter is a relative term but if you define bunter as the bottom quartile in driving distance (i.e. 150 or lower) then Luke Donald is the answer. His average "bunt" is 283.3 yds - only 12 yds farther than fellow bunter Fred Funk.

While watching the PGA final round I was struck by the visible difference in swing speed between Luke and Tiger. I measured their downswing time in slo-mo and Tiger was more than 20% faster. Suggests that Tiger should be 20% longer - which is just about right in their respective distances.

« **Reply #35 on:** August 23, 2006, 12:14:27 PM »

Quote from: Jim Sweeney on August 22, 2006, 11:25:10 PM

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.

Is this the Popa question you're referring to?

"The PGA Tour stats will tell you that in the last 25 years, (average) driving distance has increased 30-some yards," Popa said. "The (United States Golf Association) says new equipment has only added 20 yards. They say there’s only 5 yards’ difference between (drives produced by swings speeds of) 110 and 125.

"We know that’s not true. The faster you swing at the new balls, the farther they will fly, and it’s not 5 or 10 yards (farther), it’s 100 yards, 125 yards. That’s what we’re battling. That’s what we think is ruining the game, or going to ruin the game."

I'm not sure what he's trying to say the USGA is saying - that there's only a 5 yard distance increase between 110 and 125? That would be absurd to say and I don't think the USGA is that absurd. Does anyone else recall the USGA saying such a thing?

I recall a USGA paper last winter saying distance increase tails off at higher speed, but not to 5 yards for a 15 mph difference.

On the other side, saying that there is a 100 yard increase between 110 and 125 is also absurd.

« **Reply #36 on:** August 23, 2006, 05:08:53 PM »

Quote from: Tom MacWood on August 23, 2006, 06:31:37 AM

It seemed they were always one step behind the manufacturers. Is it possible they're still behind?

Tom,

Unless the B&I manufacturers are sharing their new ideas with the USGA, which I doubt, the USGA will always lag behind the arts and crafts of the B&I manufacturers.

Why ?

Because the USGA doesn't develop or manufacture anything. They are not paid to develop new materials, construct new B&I, etc. They can only test what is submitted to the USGA. If they cannot look at the B&I received, and cipher what is happening, what is being developed, then they will be even further behind.

The USGA WILL ALWAYS LAG BEHIND the manufacturers.

However, from the information often discussed at this site, maybe the USGA is catching up.

I cannot find the numbers, but when the USGA posted the MOI restrictions, those MOI regs were above what is now found in the club design. Probably, I would guess, the USGA needed some 'factor of safety' not knowing what was in the pipeline of development. However, I hope in this MOI circumstance, the USGA judged that difference between what is now on the market and their B&I regulation leaves room for little 'progress' in development.

« **Reply #37 on:** August 23, 2006, 09:25:22 PM »

John:

You are precisely correct. In his interview with Peter Kessler at the US Open, David Fay steted that there must be room for improvemt in golf- in equipment, architecture, maintenance, all aspects, otherwise the game would be stagnant.

Someone a month or so on a different thread nade the statement that the USGA has "relaxed" the equipment rules. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, the rules have been enforced more closely (putter grips in 1987) or placed limits where there were none before (ODS, COR, MOI, club length, etc.)

Of course the manufacturers are always trying to find ways to get an advantage on the competition within the rules. Noone, not even the USGA, can predict what the next advance might be. With the exception of the short lived experiment by Callaway and a few others, all these advances have been accomplished within the rules. As Fay points out, that's not always a bad thing.

I raised the question about Popa calling the USGA liars for rhetorical reasons. I don't think that is what he was saying. The USGA uses the TOur statistics as part of its analysis, for cryin' out loud. So there is another question that must be pondered, which Bryan Izatt brought up.

« **Reply #38 on:** August 24, 2006, 10:29:10 AM »

One player's experience in the one-ball tournament...

Quote

Thought I would e-mail some of my thoughts after the one-ball tournament. I was t-7th and again had a good ball striking day but 4 three putts and 4 misses inside 4 feet. I guess even this ball won't fall. Anyway, I talked with Chris Wilson before the round about the ball and his thoughts. Chris is a terrific Dublin kid attending Northwestern and an accomplished player. Big Ten, Ohio Amateur '06 champion and runner-up at the "06 Western Am. Good basis for comparison. Chris told me that he played with another college player who he outdrives by 20-25 yds in normal competition. In the OGA first round Chris said that they both hit their drivers evenly, and that was throughout the round. He also agreed with me that the touch shots rolled out, so the spin control was negated by this ball as well. The difference in the drives was what got my attention. Chris is up in the 120-125 swing speed range and this ball negated his distance advantage. Every other Senior player did not notice much distance change, just as my measured drives showed. But if the aim of the OGA, and I have talked with them about this, was to bring into play the architectural merits of the classic courses in Ohio by reducing the higher swing speed distances of the younger generation, then I think they may have been successful.

One other comment. I still play the old Ping Eye 2 irons and found that I was 1/2 club longer with the irons,especially the short irons. Also did not have my normal rising trajectory, just a straight high ball flight. I will also give Jim Popa a call about the testing group to fill in your GCA thread.

Take care and we can talk more on this. Very interesting idea.

« **Reply #39 on:** August 24, 2006, 10:48:44 AM »

Brent, Thanx for that.

Successful? I don't know if I'd agree. other than it was successful in pointing out the inherent flaw that John V points out early in this thread.

« **Reply #40 on:** August 24, 2006, 10:53:48 AM »

Interesting observations from the player and Chris Wilson.

Is it a sign of our politically correct times that some people want everyone to hit the golf ball the same distance regardless of their abilities and strength?

Tell me how it is right that a guy who hits it 25 yards past another guy suddenly hits it the same distance. Maybe if he was only 10-15 yards longer (and they both lost distance), I'd buy the change, but not removing all his edge. Why not just build a wall like they use in the Big Break out there at 280 and stop all the balls from going any further?

Interesting that a college player (Blake Stattler - Akron) still won the tournament by 6 shots over another one (Chris Wilson). Maybe distance isn't that big a factor in scoring. Alan Fadel, one of the leaders of this experiment, finished 17 shots behind the winner. I wonder what his excuse is this time.

I see that Gary Van Sickle of Sports Illustrated played in this. I wonder if he will have an article about it.

« **Reply #41 on:** August 24, 2006, 11:06:41 AM »

Brent: Thanks for posting that e-mail from David.

« **Reply #42 on:** August 24, 2006, 11:12:24 AM »

To follow up on John's comments, winning a golf tournament certainly ain't all about driver distance. Anyone strong enough and good enough to swing a driver at 120mph+ is also strong enough to hit the ball high and land it soft, to hit short irons and medium-long Par 3's, to gouge the ball out of rough and in general strength and clubhead speed for golfers help in every part of the game except putting.

So my point is even if they can lop 15 yards or whatever off the driving distance differential between a 120mph swinger and a 105mph swinger, the 120mph swinger has a lot of advantages. As for events like this being won by college players, that's almost a given. The big-time college athletes have every game-development resource available to touring professionals, plenty of time to play and practice and someone paying all their living expenses. When you take a skilled and talented young man and put him in that environment for a couple years it becomes a "man bites dog" story if some 40-year-old who works for a living beats him in a big tournament.

Tom R,

You're welcome, no trouble at all.

« **Reply #43 on:** August 24, 2006, 11:17:37 AM »

As I believe Doug pointed out, this experiment only changed the ball. If you use a higher lofted driver with a low spin ball to knock it a mile, and you change to a higher spinning ball, it is going to reduce your distance. The smart player would have dug that old 6.5 degree driver out of the basement and put it in his bag to optimize his distance with this higher spinning ball.

The significant data may come from the tests of hitting two different balls with the same driver. Because of optimization, annecdotal information about relative distance between two players on course is probably not that useful.

« **Reply #44 on:** August 24, 2006, 11:35:43 AM »

I think possibly we are missing the point here. There are many, if not most or all, G.C.A.ers who bewail the butchering of classic golf courses in order for them to be used for competitions in this day of golf technology. The O.G.A. has a number of wonderful, classic golf courses available to them for competitions. If the use of such a ball allows for a competitive tournaments on these venues,(as they were designed to be played- or at least closer to) I think it is great!

« **Reply #45 on:** August 24, 2006, 12:43:38 PM »

Tom:

Few here would disgree with you. But if I spent the time and resources to develop a skill, how is it fair that a condition of the competition takes away that skill, to the adavantage of the other competitiors?

The longer hitters still have the advantage on iron shots, but it is significantly limited if their 25 yard tee shot advantage is eliminated. In essence, the long hitters get a two club penalty on holes where they use driver, a penalty that is not assessed to the shorter hitters.

« **Reply #46 on:** August 24, 2006, 01:46:54 PM »

I feel that if there is a rollback of the ball, it should be to preserve the architecture / intended playing characteristics of the great courses, not to level the playing field in any way.

I've heard and read a number of people who seem to feel it is to make things fairer because it isn't right that Bubba Watson hits it so much further than Fred Funk. I disagree with the general premise of that.

If the ball was simply rolled back 10%, Bubba loses 32 yards and Fred loses 27. That seems to be good. Even if Bubba lost a little bit more than that to Fred (say 35 - 22), I'd be ok as long as the primary purpose was to preserve the courses and not to punish Watson for his ability, strength, flexibility or whatever.

« **Reply #47 on:** August 24, 2006, 02:38:01 PM »

I would hope the USGA would have enough data to know when a rollback would exceed the gain. I.e., How far would Bubba have hit the balata. It seems to me this should be the limit of the rollback. Any rollback that would exceed this would be wrong. If such a limit means Bubba looses 40 and Fred 15. So be it. There is nothing wrong with that!

Unfortunately I don't feel the USGA has been playing straight with the public on these issues. The have the mathematical model to predict the numbers, but don't think it is necessary (even though asked by some of us with less stature than TEPaul) or useful.

« **Reply #48 on:** August 24, 2006, 03:56:45 PM »

Could there be another angle to this? If you roll back the ball now, what do you do in another 10-15 years when the bigger fitter players are swinging the very newest technology drivers at 140mph?

If you take the (e.g.) 7000 yard classic course as sacrosanct then you have to introduce a ball that is designed as ‘governed' to a maximum distance no matter how hard it's hit. Once you do that you force the top guys to work out other ways of scoring than 'flog it'.

I know very little about the technology, but if you want to stop the creep in distance then this would appear to be a way of doing it - and protecting existing courses in perpetuity? Any other roll back would be a temporary thing.

« **Reply #49 on:** August 24, 2006, 08:30:14 PM »

Tony,

First I think that it would be impossible to come up with a ball that couldn't be hit beyond a certain distance no matter how hard it was hit.

Second, if someone did manage to hit a ball further than that, you would have to declare all the balls illegal and start again.

Third, I look at the quote from Dan King in your signature and I want to rewrite it to be "Eliminate the rewards for hard work, practice, strength training, and superior skill and it will only be about good or bad luck."

News:

T_MacWood

Tom Roewer

Jim Sweeney

David Wigler

Wayne_Kozun

Garland Bayley

A.G._Crockett

A.G._Crockett

Bryan Izatt

Bryan Izatt

Bryan Izatt

john_stiles

Jim Sweeney

Brent Hutto

Adam Clayman

JohnV

Tom Roewer

Brent Hutto

Garland Bayley

Tom Roewer

Jim Sweeney

JohnV

Garland Bayley

Tony_Muldoon

JohnV