Deane Beman- 50 more yards

[Doug Siebert]

Gary,

There's no regulation of spin rates at all.  I think everyone here who is a reasonably good golfer noticed that the first time they played a Pro V1 in the wind where the lowered spin makes it so much easier to control.  Really took the fear out of hitting a drive into a 25 mph wind for me.  In some ways I must confess it made the game more playable for me under the extreme conditions of 50+ mph winds in Ireland, as I could just bash a drive with a pretty normal trajectory into that wind and get some damn good distance.  Certainly not how I had to play in previous visits to Ireland and Scotland where a driver was pretty much out of play for me under such conditions.  I'm not sure whether that's a good thing or not but certainly in more moderate winds a lot of challenge is removed from the game by the more well behaved nature of the modern ball.

The idea of regulating spin is a good one, though if it were up to me I'd like the idea of regulating the dimple pattern investigated to see if that's a better way of attacking the problem.  If you make it use a dimple pattern that's less optimal, like something state of the art from the 70s (which is far enough back that patents have expired, neatly eliminating that issue) then you have a ball that doesn't have that soaring trajectory that makes a lower spin rate possible in combination with that high launch angle and flatter trajectory.

Something else I've thought might be good if a new ball standard was to be used (by the Masters, tour, USGA, whoever) would be to make it slightly larger.  Then it is easy to identify by sight whether a ball fits the new standard or not, and if the weight is kept the same (or perhaps even reduced as some suggest) we can get back a bit of the skill requirement for managing it in the wind that has been a part of the game since its inception that has been lost to a large extent in the last five years.

[TEPaul]

JohnV:

The way I feel about what's going on here about what the USGA is doing right now and plans to do in the very near term and the way you feel seems real similar. For the time being, however, I'm sticking with all that I said in post #10.

Do I think what Jim Vernon said in that statement or article you cited as far as what a "significant" or "meaningful increase" is, or means, or is truly "company policy" right now---if you know what I mean?

EEEOOOHAHHH----that's tough to say---but I'd tend to doubt that's the "company word" right now, if you know what I mean. My sense is these guys on the board may not have all their heads and statements quite that well worked out and together right now---but I hope I'm wrong.

I remember Jim Vernon (and his super nice wife) really well from the hotel when we all seemed to get together day after day and night after night over at the extent of the Walker Cup at Ganton.

When you meet people like Jim Vernon (chairman of the former I&B committee) you just so much want to be all for them and what they're doing and what they know. I mean for any cold eyed critic of the USGA on here I guarantee people like the Vernons are just great "folks". That aside one really does hope in his position he's just completely up to speed on all this stuff in this hugely complex world of I&B technology. It's a challenge for someone like that who isn't in that business as his profession. It sure would be for me. But I do hope he is completely up to speed in that complex world because if he (and his committee) isn't---watch out---because they're the ones most all of these important decisions and their timing fall to!

[JohnV]

Tom,  I take Jim Vernon's statement as "company policy"  Especially when combined with the following from Dick Rugge:

The joint Statement of Principles governing equipment rules that we formulated with the R&A in 2002 makes clear that we are concerned about increases in distance from any source and we'll continue to remain vigilant and monitor trends," Rugge continued. "If distance continues to increase from any source - balls, clubs, agronomy, or enhanced physical fitness - then we'll need to consider how to uphold the Statement of Principles."

I took that directly from the USGA website.

Michael, the Initial Velocity Test has had a maximum velocity of 250 feet per second (+2% tolerance) since it was first put in place in 1942.  That hasn't changed.  The test hasn't changed (other than using more modern equipment).  But, if a player swings faster than the machine, it is logical that he will have a higher velocity, no suprise there.  

 I remember watching Peter Jacobsen in a test machine swinging so hard he almost fell down in order to get the club going 110 back in the late 1980s.  Now guys are routinely swinging at 120 or more.  They are stronger,the shafts are longer and they have  less fear of swinging hard.  All of that is true.  Still, to say that the ball suddenly gets supercharged at higher swing speeds seems illogical to me.  Funny how increasing from 109 to 120 allowed them to tighten the specs if this was true.  Why didn't the change cause the USGA to see this?  No ball suddenly went further, causing it to be non-conforming.

If it was true, why is the delta between the longest hitters and the shorter ones on the PGA tour not getting greater?   I checked and the 170th longest hitter on tour hit it 92% as far as the 10th longest last year.  In 1980, he only hit it 90% as far.  The short hitters are actually getting closer to the long hitters.  I checked 1984 (no 170 in 1985), 1990, 1995 and 2000 and the change in difference has been fairly linear over that period.  They aren't all going over 120 and getting that extra boost are they?

I have to agree with Deane Beman that the biggest problem is not how far the ball goes, but how straight it goes.  I know that the PGA Tour Staff has said that is the biggest change they have noticed.  It is a lot more unusual for a player to hit it outside the ropes than it used to be.  Because of that, they are swinging harder.  Make the ball curve more and it would help.  But, I'm not sure how to do that.

Lou, you asked what I would do.  Part of me would see them roll the ball back once they have the understanding of what is going on.  They are working hard to get that understanding so that they will be prepared for more increases.  I'm not going to say how much it should be rolled back because I don't have the knowledge.   But, part of me sees the average joe who might or might not be hitting if farther today than he was and I don't want him getting the impression that the USGA is taking something away from him, even if they aren't.  That won't do the game any good.  This means that there needs to be a way to explain it to the average golfer and I've yet to be convinced that anyone here can do that.  So, until then I'm not in favor of rolling the ball back unless "significant" increases continue to occur.

[Doug Siebert]

John,

The set of tour players isn't static.  That is, saying that the shortest guy hit it 90% as far as the longest guy in 1980 or whatever and now that's 92% doesn't mean anything as far as how much the equipment changes have affected short hitters versus long hitters.

Given that the top players today are all amongst the longest hitters I think it is much more likely that the game has changed a bit to favor longer hitting more than it did in the past.  Witness how little driving accuracy matters, both from statements such as Vijay's as well as the proof in the pudding of looking at the stats.  If longer hitting is more likely to result in success on tour, the 90% guys from 1980 can't cut it now, and it has resulted in a narrowing of the gap that has nothing to do with whether the distance increase favors people who swing at 125 mph more than those who swing at 110 mph.

[TEPaul]

JohnV said;

"This means that there needs to be a way to explain it to the average golfer and I've yet to be convinced that anyone here can do that."  

JohnV:

As to what technically (take out consideration of increase in player strength) has caused the distance spikes (particularly amongst the better and longer players) in recent years certainly can be explained. Certainly by the USGA and a lot of others too. Frank Thomas explained it to me and he or Dick Rugge could certainly explain it in less than five minutes. Thomas even broke it down into components of app distance increase contributions;

1: Increase in driver COR
2. The lower spinning softer feeling new age ball
3. Optimization

Those are the TECHNICAL components that caused the distance spikes in the last 10 or so years.

Why and how did it happen? I think that's known too. The USGA's testing, protocols and procedures just weren't adequate enough to catch it all in time to prevent it before it was virtually upon them and what was technically caught as potential distance increasing problems was not recognized on the decision making level of the boards of the R&A and USGA although to a significant degree it was by the technical department.

The thing that most don't seem to understand though, is the manufacturers who pulled all this off never actually broke any of the USGA/R&A's long standing ODS rules and regs during this entire time.

This is why the USGA has recently changed and upgraded their tests, protocols and procedures! Before they did that they simply didn't work well enough to prevent this, although, again, the manufacturers did not violate ODS rules and regs.

The 109 mph swing speed of the old test protocol is a good example. Most people thought, and still think that meant that no one was allowed to swing faster than that and send the ball over 286 yds. That wasn't the point of that 109 swing speed on the test. It was simply a number picked TO TEST the PASS/FAIL line of the conformance of golf balls. (theoretically almost any mph swing speed number could've been used)

The same is basically true of the new 120MPH swing speed number on the new test protocol. That alone doesn't mean no one can or will swing faster than that or send the ball beyond 320yds.

The difference now when combined with the new "Joint Statement of Principles" is for the first time the USGA/R&A is saying if golfers do that FOR ANY REASON WHATSOEVER they now reserve the right to write new rules and regs to prevent it.

[Brent Hutto]

The modern Tour golf ball isn't magically turbocharged at higher swing speeds. However, with four layers and modern materials engineering there is a lot of room for fine-tuning what the ball does as the swing speed increases. If you say it can go 250fps when struck at 109mph that doesn't mean it will go exactly 10% more than 250fps when struck at exactly 10% more than 109mph.

Through lots of very expensive engineering and testing work the manufacturers can arrange for a ball to be at its most efficient (for lack lack of a better term) at high swing speeds and less efficient at 109mph or whatever point you set the test. That's why I say the standard needs to be specified at multiple swing speeds with at least one of those specifications well beyond the practical range that is forseeable. For instance (and these aren't the correct numbers) you could specify 250fps at 109mph and 275fps at 120mph and 300fps at 135mph and 325fps at 150mph and make a curve connecting those points the maximum acceptable initial velocity for any given swing speed.

There's also the ability of the manufacturers (of both clubs and balls) to get way more carry distance, with less curvature, for a given initial velocity than the USGA could have ever imagined 20-30 years ago. So 250fps does not necessarily equate to 286 yards or whatever. That's a much more complicated thing to regulate but such regulations can certainly be written. It just hugely complicates the testing regimen. Still, if it is a real "problem" it is certainly amenable to properly conceived regulation and testing.

[JohnV]

Brent, the 250 fps is not at 109 or 120.  It is at 98 Mph.  The actual test specification for the Initial Velocity Test is only at :

http://www.usga.org/equipment/protocols/IV.pdf

In it, the state that the rotating striker impact velocity is 143.8 ft/sec.  Which works out to just over 98 miles an hour.

For anyone interested in reading it, the specification for Overall Distance Test can be found at:

http://www.usga.org/equipment/protocols/alcod-PhaseII%20rev1c.pdf

Doug, I know the group of players as a whole swing harder, but if we are to believe that there is some magical swing speed at which non-linear increases in distance occurs, as some on this site have claimed, and that this speed is over 120 MPH (since the USGA tests don't seem to show it at that speed), then all players must be swinging over 120 because there is not a widening gap between the ones over the magic number and those below it.   Somehow I doubt that.

Tom, I believe that the distance increase can be explained in terms that you and I understand as you did.  But, that explanation is probably a lot of mumbo jumbo to the average golfer out there who will just want to know why the golf ball he is buying at the local discount store doesn't go as far as the one he bought last year when he figures he wasn't hitting it too far to begin with.  The USGA needs a PR/marketing campaign that explains to Joe Golfer that regardless of what Titleist and Top Flite have been telling him for over 40 years distance isn't everything in golf and that for the "Good of the Game"(TM) he might have to give up a couple of yards.  Perhaps the cost of the game is the best way to do that.  Appeal to his pocket book by pointing out how golf is more expensive because of the distances the ball goes.

I think there might be some fear that rolling back the ball without making that cause could cause players to ignore equipment rules and open a much bigger can of worms that the current one.  After all if Calloway and others can sell non-conforming drivers, what is to stop them from continuing to sell their current balls and what is to stop the average golfer from buying them and making the USGA more irrelevant that some of you already think it is.

And I know this is the strong argument in favor of bifirucation by the ruling bodies so that it doesn't happen without their consent.  It is why it is such a difficult question for me to just jump in and say, 'Fix it now dammit"

[Brent Hutto]

Brent, the 250 fps is not at 109 or 120.  It is at 98 Mph.  The actual test specification for the Initial Velocity Test is only at :

http://www.usga.org/equipment/protocols/IV.pdf

Thanks for the links. I wasn't really trying to use real numbers, just picking them out of the blue to illustrate a point.

...if we are to believe that there is some magical swing speed at which non-linear increases in distance occurs, as some on this site have claimed, and that this speed is over 120 MPH (since the USGA tests don't seem to show it at that speed), then all players must be swinging over 120 because there is not a widening gap between the ones over the magic number and those below it.

To pick at a minor nit, there's nothing linear about the relationship of clubhead speed to distance for any golf ball. I know that you weren't using "linear" in the strict meaning of the word but wanted to point that out lest anyone get the impression that it's as simple as a proportionality constant to relate distance to how fast the player swings the club.

Nobody is describing a sudden change in the clubhead speed versus distance relationship at some sort of threshold speed. However, there are enough degrees of freedom in modern golf ball design (and let's not forget the ability to optimally match a high-CoR clubhead to any ball) to make a variety of shapes practical for that clubhead-speed/distance curve. Given the ability to choose between those curves, it's a no-brainer for manufacturers seeking Tour endorsements to pick the parameters that let higher swing-speed performance be greater relative to whatever swing-speed corresponds to the USGA conforming-ball test.

My guess is that whatever changes are made to the USGA specifications in the future, they will not purposely involve any "roll-back" of distance for people swinging the club at 90mph or 100mph or even 110mph. They may find it politically acceptable to roll back the distance for the guys at the very top of the food chain, meaning the ones who currently can achieve a repeatable driver clubhead speed in excess of 120mph. I'm not sure Ernie Els or Tiger Woods would squawk about losing ten yards of their driver carry distance as loudly as someone who hits it 240 would bitch about losing a single yard.

[TEPaul]

"Tom, I believe that the distance increase can be explained in terms that you and I understand as you did.  But, that explanation is probably a lot of mumbo jumbo to the average golfer out there who will just want to know why the golf ball he is buying at the local discount store doesn't go as far as the one he bought last year when he figures he wasn't hitting it too far to begin with."

JohnV:

Two things. First, the USGA does not have to explain to the golfing public what happened with a technical answer. All they have to do if they wanted to be as forthcoming as I and many others feel they should be is to say to the golfing puiblc----our previous tests and test procedures were inadequate to sufficiently understand the real and potential effects of distance increases achieved in last X years that were all acheived WITHIN the allowable rules and regulations of our previous I&B testing.

That's not a technical answer at all I don't think that's too complex for the golfing public to understand and it's the honest to God truth too!

The second thing later...  

[Brent Hutto]

...our previous tests and test procedure were inadequate to sufficiently understand the real and potential effects of distance increases achieved in last X years that were all acheived WITHIN the allowable rules and regulations of our I&B testing.

That's not a technical answer at all I don't think that's too complex for the golfing public to understand and it's the honest to God truth too!

Exactly. Any time you can say something that is

a) simple
b) useful AND
c) true

then that's too good an opportunity to pass up. The next thing they need to be able to say is

"And now we have a new test procedure that won't cost anyone but the very, very longest 0.01% of players any distance at all but will be very difficult to circumvent in the future no matter how hard people learn how to swing the club".

If they can say that honestly then they'll have done everything within their power to solve "the problem".

[JohnV]

Brent, I think Tiger and Ernie would scream about losing ten yards if Bob Tway who is at 170 on the list didn't lose 8 or 9 yards.  Guarantee that all the player they compete with lose something close to a proportional distance and they might not complain (although Phil probably would as he seems to have an ego thing going.)

There are those here who have said there is a threshold speed where distance suddenly increases.

[Brent Hutto]

There are those here who have said there is a threshold speed where distance suddenly increases.

Perhaps they have misspoken or don't perfectly understand the situation. That's sort of close to being true even though it's actually not correct.

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

JVB AND Brent,
All I am relaying is what I have seen in the ball labs, distance and clubhead speed with the modern ball is NOT a linear relationship..if you choose not to agree with lab figures, and the scientists who are making these balls that is your porogotive, and to be quite honest I really do not care what you think.
However, all I am doing is relaying information that I have.

[TEPaul]

"There are those here who have said there is a threshold speed where distance suddenly increases."

JohnV:

There are those who've said that. They may call it something like an exponential distance effect over 109 or whatever or they may call it some kind of weird technical ball turbo charging effect.

I believe what it's really about is a modern method known as "Optimization". Frank Thomas of the USGA invented the damn thing as a test, for God sake, and now the manufacturers use it to create a symbiotic effect using any players swing characteristics, type of ball, and loft of club.

If this is true and I believe it is Tiger and Ernie are not going to lose distance in their present distance relationship to Tway if they get "optimized" as effectively as Tway does.

[TEPaul]

Frankly, I think when Phil said a year or so ago that Tiger wasn't using the right equipment and proceeded to get totally slammed for the remark all he was really saying is Tiger wasn't as effectively "optimized" as Phil thought he could be!  

I think there're about three elements going on here compared to ten or so years ago just as Thomas said. Together and optimally they're simply creating an effect at certain swing speeds which is probably nothing that didn't happen before with both two piece compared to three piece ball but without anyone really understanding it all or at least all the possiblities of symbiotics.

I think the nub of it is basically about a minimized spin rate on the ball that long players are now using. What's the effect of that? It has an end over end effect (spin rate) that changes the trajectory of the ball and it has a side to side effect (spin rate) that changes the likelihood of a player hitting it off line.

[Brent Hutto]

JVB AND Brent,
All I am relaying is what I have seen in the ball labs, distance and clubhead speed with the modern ball is NOT a linear relationship..if you choose not to agree with lab figures, and the scientists who are making these balls that is your porogotive, and to be quite honest I really do not care what you think.
However, all I am doing is relaying information that I have.

I also pointed out in a post this morning that the clubhead speed versus distance relationship is not at all linear. But some people interpret that as meaning that there is a specific clubhead speed beyond which the distance suddenly increases.

In reality the relationship is a smooth curve, just not a straight line. And with a four-piece golf ball, the manufacturer can affect different segments of that curve somewhat separately (but imperfectly so, as all possible curves are not achievable with real-world materials).

Naturally enough, the shapes they choose for "Tour" balls tend to have a steeper increase in distance as clubhead speeds get beyond 120mph or so. But it's not a sudden, discontinuous change. Just a gradual steepening of the curve.

[JohnV]

Tom, I agree that spin rate seems to be a possible solution.  I just want the USGA to test everything completely so that they understand the ramifications.  I don't want a half-baked solution and I don't think they do either which is why they are moving slower than many here think they should.

Michael, while you've seen the lab data, I don't see it in the stats for the tour.  There should be a big gap somewhere.

If as Tom says, it is optimization, then more is being changed than just the speed of the clubhead and if you are changing multiple variables, you can't point at one item being the cause.  Optimization isn't against any rules and never should be.  If you can get fitted for a better set of equipment that still meets the rules, great.  Bobby Jones and all the other guys who used hickory shafts "optimized" their sets by looking for balls, shafts and clubheads that fit their game.  Why can't we?

I'm not really worried about there being a jump point on the distances or not.  The ball go far regardless of any extra that might be in it for the big guys.  So lets not worry about that and let the USGA do their job.  They got a late start, but I think they are on the right track now.

[JohnV]

Brent, the question I have for you then is, How did the USGA manage to increase the speed from 109 to 120, switch from a persimmon driver to a titanium one, have all golf balls on the market remain legal and yet still increase the allowable distance by a less than linear amount?.  With a linear increase the distance allowed should be 325.8 yards, not 320.  Either the balls weren't at the limit or the increase is less than linear, not superlinear.  

It seems to me that even a curve should expand the difference between slower and faster swing speeds on a percentage basis, not decrease it as the PGA tour stats show.

But again, I really don't care about that.  Either the ball goes too far or it doesn't regardless of if it goes too far for 10% of the PGA Tour or 100%.  I think we all agree it does go too far.

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

John VB
I think where you would see it in the stats, is if you compare the increase in distance achieved by say a Phil Mick versus the gain achieved by Jay Haas for instance..the higher swing speed player has gained much higher % yardage than the slower swing speed player.

If the ball comformed to all the USGA specs this % increase would not be as large as apparently it is.
 In other words any changes made to the ball that conform to the USGA specs should provide an equal increase in distance % wise across the board for all swing speeds.
From what I was shown, this has not been the case.
I sure hope that manages to say what I am trying to say, because when it was expressed statistically to me at the lab, I must admit I was not sure it made sense to me!!!
But hey, what do I know..I tried to follow along using my best Masters thesis in Biomechanics brain..but these boffins at the lab are a different kind of bird!!

[Brent Hutto]

Brent, the question I have for you then is, How did the USGA manage to increase the speed from 109 to 120, switch from a persimmon driver to a titanium one, have all golf balls on the market remain legal and yet still increase the allowable distance by a less than linear amount?.  With a linear increase the distance allowed should be 325.8 yards, not 320.  Either the balls weren't at the limit or the increase is less than linear, not superlinear.  

I agree, it would appear that either the balls already on the market weren't at the limit or the balls on the market have a less-than-linear increase with clubhead speed between 190mph and 120mph. I wasn't the one claiming a greater-than-linear increase because I have no idea what the real results are.

That said, one other wrinkle comes to mind. Was the old USGA distance specified as carry+roll? How about the new specification? If either or both are something other than pure carry then it's all a crapshoot depending on what roll assumptions they make. Seems I read somewhere that the older test had a carry+roll limit, which is, was and ever shall be a stupid way to specify maximum ball performance.

It seems to me that even a curve should expand the difference between slower and faster swing speeds on a percentage basis, not decrease it as the PGA tour stats show.

There are no PGA Tour stats on clubhead speed that I'm aware of. The so-called "driving distance" that they've published for years is a garbage stat. It is totally uninformative regarding clubhead speed or ball performance. Even the newer ShotLink based stats do not quantify clubhead speed and IMHO admit no useful assumptions that might let us estimate the distribution of clubhead speeds in the Tour player population. Sorry, there's just no data there.

But again, I really don't care about that.  Either the ball goes too far or it doesn't regardless of if it goes too far for 10% of the PGA Tour or 100%.  I think we all agree it does go too far.

Just to be clear, I do not agree that the ball goes too far. I only agree that the older USGA ball test as well as the newer one are insufficient to regulate the driving distance of the strongest players in the world. That's not the same as agreeing that there's a problem with how far the ball goes in general.

[JohnV]

John VB
In other words any changes made to the ball that conform to the USGA specs should provide an equal increase in distance % wise across the board for all swing speeds.

There is nothing in the USGA specs that states this.  Perhaps there should be.  Say an ODS for a ball struck at 100, 110, 120, 130 and 140 which enforces this.  But currently there isn't one so there is nothing wrong with the balls.

I think where you would see it in the stats, is if you compare the increase in distance achieved by say a Phil Mick versus the gain achieved by Jay Haas for instance..the higher swing speed player has gained much higher % yardage than the slower swing speed player.

I compared John Daly and Fred Funk for 1995 and 2004.  Both have increased there distance by 5.88% over that time.   I also compared the average of the top 10 in 1995 and 2004 vs the average of the 171st to 180th players.  The top 10 increased by 8.6% while the shorter guys increased by 10%.

This sounds more like the argument that the new technology has  helped the lesser player keep up with the best players rather than the opposite.

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

JVB
Very interesting..perhaps those boffins are not as smart as they told me they were.....plus..you have way to much time on your hands

[JohnV]

Michael,  Actually I don't.  I need to get back to work so I'm done with this for now.

[Pete Lavallee]

Brent, the question I have for you then is, How did the USGA manage to increase the speed from 109 to 120, switch from a persimmon driver to a titanium one, have all golf balls on the market remain legal and yet still increase the allowable distance by a less than linear amount?.  

John,

I think the anwer lies in optimization. The USGA uses only one type of driver, albiet titanuim, but with just one loft. With this loft the ball passes the test. However with a different loft the launch angle is changed and the ball goes further with the same swing speed. Unfortunately this is the loft Ernie chooses and gets more out of the ball than the USGA test would indicate.

When Frank Thomas suggested the optimization testing, i.e., finding the loft that would propel each type of ball the furthest and testing it with this loft driver, it was shelved. Why, because many balls on the market would have failed the test, the ProV1 included. Again it goes back to a flawed test procedure.

[JohnV]

Pete,

I assume they did the testing that Thomas recommended on a number of balls and probably saw that it would be too big a change to go through with it.  They are probably doing more of it right now in their data gathering that they say will be done by the end of 2005.  Who knows, maybe even the Titlest Tour Professional and the Top Flight rock failed.  I don't think it would be wise to just rip up the conforming ball list and say, everyone start over without having all the facts as to why it was needed.  They are gathering those facts.

Everyone should read James Achenbach's column in Golfweek this week.  Especially one Dick Rugge basher from Southern California.  It is a fair article on where the USGA is, what they are doing and why they are doing it.  It isn't online at this time, but if you did what Pat Mucci recommended last week and subscribed you'd have it by now.