Ruination ?

[TEPaul]

Sheldon:

Since I'm so untechnical although they've told me a number of times I forget about the specific technical reasons for this ball performance stuff but I just called the tech center again and they confirm that there is no "explosive" effect as swing speed increases and that it's pretty linear.

The big distance increase due to balls (not considering COR, lighter weight materials and computer "optimization) was when most all the elite players went from the high spinning balls to these new age lower spinning balls. The reason they all made the change is because the manufacturers finally figured out how to make a low spinning ball that didn't feel so hard (around the greens).

According to tech center the distance increase (when solely considering the golf ball itself) is basically the result of the different trajectory caused be the lower spinning balls and somewhat altered initial launch angle due to construction properties.

I realize there will probably always be people on here who think they can prove the ball explodes distance-wise at some swing speed or swing speed increase (above 109mph) by analyzing tour driving distance stats but somehow I think I'd rather believe the USGA Tech Center who actually have the mechanisms and tests to analyze this stuff and have spent app $10 million on analyzing numerous ball performance characteristics and the technical reasons for them for the last 3-4 years.  

[Bryan Izatt]

So many assertions based on what data?

Pat,

"The fact that you haven't gotten shorter, despite aging ten years"

Do you have data to support the deterioration of distance by each year of aging, absent of technology change?  
YES

I watched my Father and his generation, including some exceptional players, year after year, for 30 years, as their distance eroded.

Until, the metal wood and the Pinnacle ball came on the scene.  Then there was an immediate jump, a recapturing of some of their lost distance.

Now let me think, was that the same year they all got their
B-12 shots, or was that the year El Nino swept in from the west, or both ? [/color]

Methinks this is anecdotal observation - not measured data.  I was hoping that there was a chart, based on measurable tests, that you knew of, that would tell me on average how much distance players lose as they age.  I don't dispute that distance is lost.

I was just trying to make the point that TEP makes in other postings, that measurable data on equipment performance seems sadly lacking and that's what the USGA is trying to come up with in their research.

Is it linear degradation from some peak point?  Or exponential?

It varies, but, the trend is undeniable.
For some it's linear, for others it's more sporadic.
But, relentlessly, the trend continues in but one direction.

When I see amateurs, in their mid 50's and 60's hitting the ball farther then Hogan, Nelson, Snead, Palmer and Nicklaus did in their prime, it should tell you something, unless of course, you're in denial.[/color]

I'm not in denial.  Technology helps all of us hit it further to some degree.  I just would like to see some measurable test data that demonstrates the reality rather than try to base it on anecdotal observation.

[Bryan Izatt]

Sheldon:

Since I'm so untechnical although they've told me a number of times I forget about the specific technical reasons for this ball performance stuff but I just called the tech center again and they confirm that there is no "explosive" effect as swing speed increases and that it's pretty linear.

The big distance increase due to balls (not considering COR, lighter weight materials and computer "optimization) was when most all the elite players went from the high spinning balls to these new age lower spinning balls. The reason they all made the change is because the manufacturers finally figured out how to make a low spinning ball that didn't feel so hard (around the greens).

According to tech center the distance increase (when solely considering the golf ball itself) is basically the result of the different trajectory caused be the lower spinning balls and somewhat altered initial launch angle due to construction properties.

I realize there will probably always be people on here who think they can prove the ball explodes distance-wise at some swing speed or swing speed increase (above 109mph) by analyzing tour driving distance stats but somehow I think I'd rather believe the USGA Tech Center who actually have the mechanisms and tests to analyze this stuff and have spent app $10 million on analyzing numerous ball performance characteristics and the technical reasons for them for the last 3-4 years.  
 

Good stuff.  Do you suppose the USGA would release to you, so you could post it, a table that shows the carry distance vs swing speed vs ball speed from their testing?  And the test conditions?  Do you know if they measure the carry distance physically or do they model it?

[TEPaul]

"Do you know if they measure the carry distance physically or do they model it?"

I'm not sure but I think both.

Could I get them to release their technical data so I could post it on here?

I'd say the chances of that are about as good as you getting all 1500 registrants of this website to sing a simultaneous chorus of;

"Dear USGA, we're so sorry we're so critical of everything you do all the time
and we promise never to be critical again, and secretly we really love you".

[TEPaul]

Bryan:

I just called the USGA and asked them if they'd release the technical data you mentioned to me so I could post it on Golfclubatlas.com

They said they'd consider it if I could get all 1500 GOLFCLUBATLAS.com registrants to drag GeoffShac up to Far Hills and into the Tech Center and place him in front of Iron Bryon so IB could launch his head on a high trajectory out into the outdoor range at a swing speed of 122mph with a brand new R7 460cc driver.

I told them I'd never consider such a cruel and underhanded thing since he's a friend of mine anyway. They said---well OK then don't expect them to let me have that technical data so it could be posted on GOLFCLUBATLAS.com.

However, before they had the chance to hang up I told them I'd consider it if they let me ride around on their NetJet this coming year to the top 23 golf courses on Golf Digest's list and if they flew me out to Santa Monica to pick him up.

They then asked me if I really thought it would be possible to lure him onto their NetJet.

I said---good point---but if they'd let me take Hogan's 1 iron out of the case in Golf House and out to the coast with me I might be able to whack him upside the head with it when he wasn't looking and wrap him unconcsious in one of his carpets and haul him onto the NetJet back to NJ, Far Hills, the Tech Center and Iron Byron.

Just before we all hung up I heard one of the Tech Center guys asking if anyone had any idea what the spin rate, launch angle and initial velocity of GeoffShac's head might be and if it would be a high draw or a low fade.

[DMoriarty]

Since I'm so untechnical although they've told me a number of times I forget about the specific technical reasons for this ball performance stuff but I just called the tech center again and they confirm that there is no "explosive" effect as swing speed increases and that it's pretty linear.

According to tech center the distance increase (when solely considering the golf ball itself) is basically the result of the different trajectory caused be the lower spinning balls and somewhat altered initial launch angle due to construction properties.

Interesting, but I am not sure what to make of it without more information.   What do they mean when they say the progression is linear?  Linear as a percentage increase, or as an actual yardage increase?  Does this apply when equipment, ball, and swing are optimized?  If this is true then why do so many golfers with moderatel swing speeds get no benefit from a ball like the ProV1x, while those with fast swing speeds get a big boost?

I am not doubting what they told you, just trying to understand it.   Shel's comments about his dealings with the USGA seem somewhat inconsistent with yours, and while I am sure that at some level they reconcile we do not have sufficient information to reconcile them at this point.

One important factor to consider is not only the linearity of the progression, but also the slope.   I'll try to chart out a hypothetical to show you what I mean.  
_____________________

I know your comments about the USGA and Geoff are in jest, but unfortunately there is probably some degree of truth in your portrayal of their feelings toward Geoff.  If so it baffles me.  Geoff has been so far ahead of them on this distance issue that you'd think instead of being offended by him that they would embrace him and see what they could learn from him.  They ought to send their jet to pick him up so they could get his take on the whole issue.  Both might learn something.  

[TEPaul]

"Does this apply when equipment, ball, and swing are optimized?  If this is true then why do so many golfers with moderatel swing speeds get no benefit from a ball like the ProV1x, while those with fast swing speeds get a big boost?"

David:

That's a very good question.

I didn't exactly ask that or that way but from everything they've told me so far I'd say it this way.

First of all consider this:

I asked if a power hitter, for instance, Love, used the same equipment he has today 20 years ago with a low spinning two piece hard ball (the old rock, like a Pinnacle) if he'd get basically the same trajectory and distance as a ProVx. He said absolutely minus perhaps a slightly different initial launch angle characteristic between the two balls.

So if you just consider the ball alone it's all about spin rate that effects the trajectory which effects the distance of a power hitter and apparently pretty dramatically.

The thing you may not realize is when a real power hitter hits a ball like those old high spinning soft balls very hard (high swing speed) they tend to really stay down initially and then maybe 100 yards out they climb lke a Lear jet taking off.

Why that is I really can't say comprehensively (although you can find the technical aerodynamic reasons for it on the Internet) but that's a proven fact. And the fact is just about all of the elite players about ten years ago used the high spinning soft balls (because they all wanted their soft feel around the green). Tech even mentioned that today's ProVx spins around 2,000 rpms while those old high spinning soft balls were about 3,000 rpms. That's a big difference.

So when the elite players who all swing around 109 and above started using the new age ball around 5-10 years ago their trajectories did not stay down like it used to when they hit the high spin balls really hard. Their trajectories with the new low spinning balls (ProV (and the old rocks)) launched right up and that's the distance trajectory. With the golf ball considered in and of itself----that caused a big distance spike. Of course, as you say, there were other factors from back then to now---lighter materials, larger heads, computer optimization and greater COR, and maybe due to various factors power hitters simply swing with more abandon.

One of the reasons lower swing speed golfers didn't see much difference into the ProVx age is most of them used low spinning hard balls for up to 30-40 years anyway (unlike the elite players) and those balls perform no different distance-wise for them than the ProVx type---so they saw no real difference.

The other reason is even if lower swing speed golfers did use the high spinning softer balls all the elite players used to use they generally don't have the swing speed to be able to keep those higher spinning balls down like the elite players used to.

Golfers like you and me David, probably don't have the swing speed to keep one of those old high spinning balls down like the elite players could even if we tried to hit it as hard as we could.

This is the story for the distance spike in just the context of the golf ball back then compared to now. It's pretty much all about spin rate with a high swing speed, and the fact that almost all elite players went from high spin rate balls to low spin rate balls.

As an example of this logic and reality read what Tiger Woods said about the spin rate he uses and how it plays out for him in a distance context. You can find what he said on GeoffShac's website on the first page.

[Michael Moore]

Pat Mucci -

Did your father and the top amateurs of his generation express any concern about the metal wood and the Pinnacle distance ball?

The meaurements for my little map there were taken from the New York State geographical information systems web site.

[TEPaul]

"Geoff has been so far ahead of them on this distance issue that you'd think instead of being offended by him that they would embrace him and see what they could learn from him.  They ought to send their jet to pick him up so they could get his take on the whole issue."

David:

I sure do hope you mean that in jest. I've known Goeff for a long time now and he certainly is a strong advocate for distance control but Geoff certainly does not understand the technical ramifications of either what happened in the last 10-12 years and how to go about doing something about it as well as the USGA's Tech Center. And don't forget, the USGA's Tech Dept makes recommendations on I&B (26 years with Frank Thomas) to the "Equipment Standards" Committee who votes and whose vote ends up being voted on by the board of the USGA. The USGA Tech Center does not make I&B policy that gets enacted---ultimately the combined boards of the R&A and USGA do that.

Do you see what that friend of Shel's said who's apparently a lawyer for the USGA or even the "Equipment Standards" committee? Technically this issue cannot cut both ways and for whatever reason that man just has his technical facts wrong. Perhaps he should just go into the USGA's Tech Center and go over this with them again. At the very least there is virtually no conceivable way that lawyer could know more about the technical ramifications of I&B than the USGA Tech Center does. I'm just waiting for someone on here to claim that or even claim they understand this stuff better than the USGA's Tech Center, at which point I'm going to publicly howl with laughter.  

This is precisely what used to just frustrate the Holy Hell out of Frank Thomas----he'd give them the technical ramifications of this I&B stuff and the committee people either couldn't or didn't figure it out correctly or just didn't care because they were concerned about getting sued.

I saw Frank around for a long time and he didn't seem to care about getting sued---Hell, Karsten sued him personally for something like $10 million. Frank just wanted to hold the line---he may not have anticipated everything---like the ultimate effect of the ball change but he sure tried to hold the line on COR right at the COR of a persimmon face---and anyone can look and see that his recommendation on that is part of the record long ago.

Did they take his advice? No, they didn't. If they had would distance have spiked like it did? More than very likely it would not have. But that's water under the bridge now.

[Brent Hutto]

A common-sense way to visualize why high-spin balls start out on a low trajectory and low-spin balls start out on a high trajectory is to realize that for a clubhead with a certain loft striking the ball at a certain speed the amount of energy delivered to the ball is split between three components (not counting lost energy due to the imperfect rebound of the ball off the face).

Forward

Upward

Spin

The degree of loft of the clubface along with the characteristics of the ball (more specifically the ball-clubface system if you want to account for so-called "spring-like effect") determines the split between these three components. The proportion going into "Forward" is pretty much determined by the loft of the clubface. So the type of ball can cause more "Upward" and less "Spin" (harder cover, etc.) or more "Spin" and less "Upward" (softer cover, etc.).

So at a given loft and clubhead speed, a ball that spins more will always start out less "Upward" than a ball that spins less. That's the initial launch.

Once the ball is away from the clubface and moving through the air, the backspin produces an aerodynamic force to elevate the ball above its initial "Upward" angle. However, gravity is also working to make the ball travel below its initial angle. The old high spin balls when hit hard generated a considerable amount of aerodynamic upforce. The reason it appeared to take effect after 100 yards or so was that it produced an upward-inflected curve until drag and gravity conspired to bend that curve back toward the ground.

How's that?

[DMoriarty]

TomPaul,

I read your posts above and it is all very interesting, and helps explain how we got to where we are today, but unless I am missing something it doesnt really address the impact on the game of different balls at different swing speeds.  

To say that the increase is linear without explaining what that means does not really put the issue of apparent explosiveness to rest.   We at least need to know just what exactly they are calling linear.  Are they comparing  . . .
-- incrimental mph increases to actual distance increases?
-- percentage mph increases to percentage distance increases?
-- incrimental mph increases to percentage distance increases?
-- percentage mph increases to actual distance increases?

For example, the 3rd method might produce a linear result, but the actual distance increases will not necessarily be linear.

Also, realize that whatever method they use, the slope of the line is crucial when we start comparing balls.  Even if the increases are linear (by whatever method.) How much increase are different balls getting for similar speed increases?

For hypothetical example, using the first method above, here is a chart for two hypothetical balls.  One ball increases 9 yards per 5 mph increase in swing speed, the other increases 11 yards per 5 yd increase in swing speed.



Note that the second ball gives much more benefit for a higher speed swinger and actually hurts the slower swing golfer, relative to the first ball.  

Note also that both balls likely comply at the old standard (296.7 yds at 109 mph) and the new proposed (320 yds at 120 mph.)

Note also that is hypothecal.   I dont know if these numbers are reasonable or even possible, but you can see that, theoretically at least, one can have a linear progression and still provide a much greater benefit to the higher swing speed golfer.  

[TEPaul]

David:

The USGA is your National amateur golf association that's charged with monitoring I&B in the USA and Mexico just as much as it's my National amateur golf association.

I suggest you call this number 908-234-2300. One of a few very nice ladies will answer. Tell her you'd like to speak with the Tech Center and she'll connect you. When you get them ask them if they'd mind if you sent them an email with that post above and that graph attached to it, and if they'd mind carefully examining it and answering your questions and hypotheticals and such.

I'm afraid I'm just too damn dumb to understand what you're after here and why the answers I produced today after speaking with them about whether there's some "explosive effect" at some swing speed or swing speed range is not satisfactory.

If they happen to ask you if you're a current member of the USGA and if you've paid your annual membership fee lately tell them that's none of the USGA Tech Center's Goddamn business and if they want to know something like that they can take it up with the USGA Member's Program Dept.

If they don't seem to accept that response from you just tell them you're a friend of GeoffShac's and if they don't answer your questions you're gonna tell him about this kettle of fish and then tell them they'll really be in some deep CaCa.

Tell them they'd better bloody well cough up some pretty fine hypothetical answers like yesterday if they don't want to find themselves totally mired in "Spin Rategate".

[Bryan Izatt]

TEP,

And here I thought you could charm your national association into releasing the national secrets of spin, speed and distance.  They sure aren't going to tell us, your northern neighbours, who aren't members.  Are you sure you don't want to sacrifice Shack for the cause?  Seriously, it is good to know that there is some objective testing going on rather than all the speculation.  Hopefully all will be revealed in time.

Seems to me that GD did an article some time ago where they tested side by side new balls and equipment versus old.  As best I recall, the conclusion is about the same as the USGA is suggesting to you.

Dave,

From a physics point of view, I believe they mean linear in the way you drew your chart.  No idea what the slope of the line is, but you could guess based on a test.  Get three people with three disparate swing speeds and have them swing the same club at the same ball and measure their swing speed and the carry distance, making sure they have a centre hit each.  If it's linear those three points will give you the line and the slope.  My guess is it'd be about 3 yards per mph.  Whether different balls have different slopes, who knows.  I suspect the USGA would never release that level of detail.

Why do higher spinning balls rise and then drop?  It's caused by the Bernoulli effect.  Same reason airplane wings provide lift.  A ball with back spin about a horizontal axis will have air travelling faster over the top of the ball and slower over the bottom.  The faster moving air over the top creates lower pressure; the slower air on the bottom creates higher pressure.  The differential causes the ball to lift.  The more spin, the more lift.  That trajectory will decrease carry distance at high ball speeds.  At low ball speeds you want the spin to create the lift to keep the ball in the air longer.  There's less resistance in the air than on the ground.

The physics of all this is complicated.  Empirical tests are a way to simplify it.  Could it be that the USGA is on the right track?  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat Mucci -

Did your father and the top amateurs of his generation express any concern about the metal wood and the Pinnacle distance ball?

I think they were amazed and in disbelief.

This was at the begining of the quantum leap.

Sort of like watching in 1968 when Dick Fosberry ran down the runway and executed the Fosberry Flop. [/color]

[DMoriarty]

 Dave,

From a physics point of view, I believe they mean linear in the way you drew your chart.  No idea what the slope of the line is, but you could guess based on a test.  

No way I could hold the variables constant enough to do meaningful tests.  Plus, there won't likely be only one line, but rather multiple lines to reflect the different balls and the different variables.  

I guess my point is that even if we are dealing with straight lines, the new technology may still disproportionately favor golfers with faster swing speeds.  

Could it be that the USGA is on the right track?  

They could be on the right track, I just hope the race isnt already over.  

[TEPaul]

"I guess my point is that even if we are dealing with straight lines, the new technology may still disproportionately favor golfers with faster swing speeds."

David:

I realize that's the point you seem to be trying to establish---and I think you have been for some time now. It is sort of a tantalizing point too that some may believe. However, I think the Tech Center explained why that feeling exists for some, but Tech's explanation puts most of the cause of that perception on the "switch", so to speak---eg when so many good players went from high spinning balls to lower spinning balls. That's when the real distance spike came about for elite players when looking at the distance increase only in the context of the golf ball.

One can see how and why this happened when one realizes that most all lower swing speed players never did make the "switch" from high spinning balls to lower spinning balls. Basically most all the "handicap" world always used low spinning balls or at least has for about 40 or more years since the enormous break-through came when the two piece hard cover ball was first made.

So it really is NOT that the new ProV type ball is NOT straight-line or linear in distance as swing speed increases it's just that the "switch" made it seem like it for a time for the elite player.

At least that's what the Tech Center says and they do have the stats and the data.

However, one class of stats I really would like to see is how much those old high-spinning soft balls that most all elite players used up until about 10 years ago were BELOW the ODS line when hit at 109mph.  

The reason I ask that is it really would be applicable to this overall subject because it is pretty obvious that the old two-piece hard ball like the Pinnacle was right on the ODS limit line for years. And that would explain why Tech Center said yesterday that if a power hitter like Davis Love used the equipment he does today 20 years ago with a two piece hard covered ball like a Pinnacle he would essentially get the same basic trajectory and distance that he does today with the ProV type ball. So why didn't elite power players like Love use that type of ball for more distance 20 years ago? I think we all know why.

Again, according to the Tech Center the physical explanation for the distance spike as it just relates to the golf ball is mostly all about spin rate.

So the theory is, if the regulatory bodies want to do something about distance why don't they just establish a new rule or reg for all golf balls that they cannot have LESS than X amount of spin rate? I asked the Tech Center that about two years ago---eg if it would sort of rollback distance for the power player and was basically told "Yep!"

The next question of course would be if that was done with the golf ball would it unnecessarily hurt the distance of the slower swinging player? The unbelievable thing to consider is it may not! Why not? Because slow swingers can't hit the higher spinning ball hard enough anway to really keep its trajectory down like power players.

[DMoriarty]

Tom,

I am not sure why you think what I am saying and what the tech center guys are telling you is mutually exclusive.  As I understand it, what I am saying fits perfectly what they are saying.  

I am not a vector scientist (that's for you Shiv,) but as I understand it, the conversation about spin rate it is totally consistent with the faster swingers benefiting from technological changes more than the slower swingers.  Here is what Bryan says above about spin rates, trajectory, and carry (with my bolds). . .

Why do higher spinning balls rise and then drop?  It's caused by the Bernoulli effect. . . . A ball with back spin about a horizontal axis will have air travelling faster over the top of the ball and slower over the bottom.  The faster moving air over the top creates lower pressure; the slower air on the bottom creates higher pressure.  The differential causes the ball to lift.  The more spin, the more lift.  That trajectory will decrease carry distance at high ball speeds.  At low ball speeds you want the spin to create the lift to keep the ball in the air longer. . . .

According to Bryan-- and even to you below-- only those with faster swing speeds benefit from these newer low spin balls.  The higher the swing speed, the more benefit of the lower spin rate.  The lower the swing speed, the more the detrement of the lower swing speed.

Now you always have given great weight to the fact that lower spin balls have been around for years.  But we all know that almost all the best players found them unsuitable for control reasons.  Making these low spin balls playable may well have been the technological advancement that is killing the short hitter, or it may have been a combination of technological advancements all relating to control at exceedingly high swing speeds.  

Whatever the reason, the advancements have disproportionately helped only one end of the swingspeed spectrum, which is what many of us have been saying for a very long time.  

In the chart above, the pink line would represent a ball that performed relatively better at high swing speeds and relatively worse at low swing speeds.  If a ball with these distance characteristics existed before, it was unusuable to those who could have potentially benefited from the distance characteristics.  

The next question of course would be if that was done with the golf ball would it unnecessarily hurt the distance of the slower swinging player? The unbelievable thing to consider is it may not! Why not? Because slow swingers can't hit the higher spinning ball hard enough anway to really keep its trajectory down like power players.

Tom,  this is the exact point that I and many others (Pete L. for one) have been trying to make for three or four years now.  It is quite possible to shape the rules so those with low swing speeds were not harmed at all.   No need to bifurcate, no need to frustrate the hack by shortening his drives.  Just lean on the big guy a little.  

[Pete Lavallee]

Tom,  this is the exact point that I and many others (Pete L. for one) have been trying to make for three or four years now.  It is quite possible to shape the rules so those with low swing speeds were not harmed at all.  No need to bifurcate, no need to frustrate the hack by shortening his drives.  Just lean on the big guy a little.

My point exactly! Although Craig Sweet won't believe me, at my modest club with 350 members, I have played with at least 5 golfers who can carry the ball 290 yards with ease. However I don't see the shorter hittters provoking the greens committee to build any new back tees.  

The common thread here on the distance debate is that since normal golfers haven't gained any distance why reign the ball in! Well if you aren't fortunate enough to play with people capable of generating clubhead speed over 110 mph you wouldn't know why the situation is so out of hand.

Both Tom P and Dave make very valid points in their arguments: Dave wants action now, we've waited too long and Tom P; we must proceed with caution in such a volitile issue.

However in support of David's postion I will offer the following. I am without doubt the second shortest hitting 6 handicap on the planet. Only once have I played with someone whose handicap was equal to or lower than mine that I could outdrive (220 carry). Coming from New Bedford Ma., the home of the Titleist, I have always played them out of hometown loyalty (thank God they have a good product). For the 5 years prior to the introduction of the Pro V1 I played their Balata ball and can find no distance increase in the Pro V1. Of course the Pro V1 has an unbelievably durable cover and is great around the greens. But the distance benefits just don't work at my swing speed. I'm sure that a higher spinning ball would check the distance of floggers and make it harder for them to hit the ball straight with their all out swings. I doubt it would effect my distance in the least.  

So from my point of view, I'm the guy on the lower edge of the pink line and want to see those guys on the top brought back in sight. Golf was a great game because it gave every player a chance to employ their unique skills to have a chance to win. Now the distance factor is emphasized inordinately and has skewed the game towards those who can swing fast. Please give the rest of us a fighting chance.


 
 

[TEPaul]

"The higher the swing speed, the more benefit of the lower spin rate.  The lower the swing speed, the more the detrement of the lower swing speed."

David:

I'm not exactly sure why you think a lower spining ball is of any detriment to a slower swing speed player.

 

[TEPaul]

PeteL:

I'm not too sure what David Moriarty thinks I'm basically trying to say here but for years now I have said that the key to reigning in the excessive recent distance increase of the elite power player may lie in the R&A/USGA enacting a rule or reg regarding the ball that would place a limitation on the MINIMUM amount of spin rate a golf ball may have.

The back pages of this website are full of that suggestion by me over the years. And I even remember where it first occured to me. A few years ago John Ott and I visited the USGA's Tech Center and our friend there gave us a demonstration of all the ball testing machines. We were standing next to the initial velocity machine and he had just explained to us the five areas or factors of the golf ball the R&A/USGA regulates.

Spin rate is not one of them and so I asked him if they instituted a sixth area of ball performance regulation to do with a limitation on the minimum amount of spin rate a ball could have if that could effect the distance these elite power players hit the ball. He thought for just a moment and basically said yes it would.

I then asked him why don't they do that and he thought for another moment and merely said because they never have regulated the spin rate of the golf ball.

But if you're following some of the things Jim Vernon just said in Atlanta it would appear they very well may be thinking of doing that among a couple of other things.

Jim Vernon in his report mentioned three things they are looking at now;

1/ MOI
2/ Spin generation
3/ All things to do with ball performance

If you read his report carefully it would appear "spin generation" in their opinion has as much to do with club faces as anything but the third area they mention---the ball---has many possible ramifications and what that Tech guy said about a golf ball's spin rate is certainly one of them.

[JohnV]

David,

You make a valid point that the rate of change (slope) of the line is important to seeing what is happening.

If we assume that a ball were to gain distance at a rate exactly proportional to the swing speed, we would see that a ball hit at 109 MPH that went 296.8 yards (old standard), would now go 326.75 yards at 120 MPH.  Since the USGA set the standard at 320 yards and no ball was found to be non-conforming, we have to assume that the slope of the line is lower than an exactly proportional increase.  In addition to that, the USGA went from a wooden head driver to a 360 CC titanium driver with a higher COR and still came nowhere near a proportional distance increase.

Lets look at some numbers:

Increase that is a proportional increase (ie D2 = D1*(S2-S1) or 10% faster swing gives 10% more distance)
Speed    Distance
090        245
100        272
109        296.8 (old standard)
115        313
120        326.75
125        340
130        354

Distances based on a line that runs from 296 at 109 to 320 at 120 ie D3 = D1+((D2-D1)*((S3-S1)/(S2-S1)))
Speed    Distance
090        257
100        278
109        296.8
115        309
120        320
125        331
130        341

Notice that this line, if graphed would be flatter, meaning the difference between a 90 MPH swing and 130 MPH swing is 84 yards vs 109 in the proportional model.

Given that the titanium driver hits it further than the persimmon one, a 109 swing speed with titanium should have hit the ball further than the 296.8 yards allowed.  If that is true, the line would have to be EVEN FLATTER!.

It seems to me that a 90 MPH swing with a wooden driver, probably would have a hard time going 245 yards as the proportional model suggests, but I suppose that perfect contact might get it that far.

If, instead, a 90 MPH swing hit the ball 220 and a 109 swing hit it 296.8, then a 120 MPH swing should hit it 341 yards which would make the ball non-conforming.  So, if there is a curve, it must be a downward one, not an upward one.  In other words, more speed gets proportionally less benefit.

Just out of curiosity, I took the numbers from the proportional data and adjusted them for a .78 COR (what the USGA says is the COR of persimmon).  The numbers are within one yard of the second set of numbers.

If you adjust it for a COR of .83 which is the current maximum, the numbers drop by 3 yards for the 90 MPH swing and increase by 3 yards for the 130 MPH swing from the second set.  This suggests a steeper curve for a higher COR which makes sense as many have said that the new drivers give more benefit for the faster swinger.  At 120 MPH, the distance is 321.6 yards.

After doing all this, all I will say is that there really are too many assumptions given the lack of complete data to put much faith in anything I said here (although I do like the way the .78 COR validates the second set of numbers.)

[TEPaul]

JohnV:

What do you think about David M's stated feeling that a low spinning golf ball disproportionately benefits a high swing speed or alternatively a low spinning ball is disporportionately detrimental to a slow swing speed?

[JohnV]

Tom,

I have no real feeling for that.  I don't know enough about spin rates to even guess.  

All I will ask is that if a low spinning ball hurt the slower swing speed, why did the high handicappers all play Pinnacles and Top-Rocks for years?

[Pete Lavallee]

John,

Although your math looks sound you are discounting the fact that using Iron Byron data with just one driver (one probably ill suited to provide the best launch conditions for that ball) you are not mirroring the real world.

I think most reasonable people would agree that it's the synergy of the ball and the modern driver that produce the inordinate distance. In 5 years Tour players went from 6* drivers to 9*, to provide the launch conditions that optimize the ball they are playing. My experience tells me that there truely is a benefit for the player with swing speed in excess of the testing limit.

[Brent Hutto]

All I will ask is that if a low spinning ball hurt the slower swing speed, why did the high handicappers all play Pinnacles and Top-Rocks for years?

Because they roll a long way and they don't hook or slice as far offline.

Anyone with a clubhead speed much less than 100mph will get more carry with a high-spin ball than with a low-spin one. That additional five yards of carry does you no good if the high-spin ball also turns your 20-yard "fade" into a 40-yard banana ball.