A REAL Contrarian view on distance & technology - Go TITLEIST!!!

[TEPaul]

"TEPaul,
So then you will not grant me this simple courtesy?  I would have thought a gentleman like you could manage to express himself without resorting to calling people spoilt children."

David:

I'm sorry about that but I'm old fashioned I guess and I'm probably from the old school that feels it's the real responsibility of the older generation to disciplne the ill manners and petulance of children so that they don't grow up to become total pain in the ass "know-it-alls".    

[TEPaul]

Bryan:

Post #98 looks like reasonable list.

You are aware, aren't you that the USGA called for prototype balls from all the manufactuers to be submitted to them to test and experiment with which go 25 (and 15) yards less far. If they were to call for the adoption of a ball like that most of your 30 yard increase in the last 20 years (which the USGA appears to confirm) would be wiped away. As they say, the ball might not be most of the problem but potentially it can be much of the solution.

[Bryan Izatt]

Bryan:

Post #98 looks like reasonable list.

You are aware, aren't you that the USGA called for prototype balls from all the manufactuers to be submitted to them to test and experiment with which go 25 (and 15) yards less far.  Yes, I saw that.  I expect I'll have some question's and want to see some data for those balls too.  At what speed would they be 25 yards less and are they linear both ways from that speed?  And what's the slope of the line.  You have more experience with the USGA than I do (and they're not even my Association) - do you think they'll ever go for reasonably full disclosure of their data on existing and proposed balls?  If they were to call for the adoption of a ball like that most of your 30 yard increase in the last 20 years (which the USGA appears to confirm) would be wiped away. As they say, the ball might not be most of the problem but potentially it can be much of the solution.    Indeed it can.  I guess the ball manufacturers will pay the price for the others.

[TEPaul]

Bryan:

I don't know anything about the new reduced distance prototype balls that apparently all the manufacturers have submitted to the USGA in the last six months for testing and analysis. I don't believe the USGA asked for any particular specs just sample balls from all the manufacturers that go 15 and 25 less far. You ask--less far than what? Good question but probably less far than ODS.

As to whether they're linear distance-wise through the swing speed spectrum I have no idea. Why don't we get David Moriarty to supply us accurate information on that with some more of his hypothetical charts so we can know for sure?  

[DMoriarty]

If you guys actually read what I said, it would make this conversation much more productive.  

TEPaul.  

What you say might be germaine if I had based my reasoning on a single tournament.  But of course I did no such thing.  The chart shows the numbers for the entire 2002 and the entire 2003  On average, those who switched to the ProV1x gained close to 10 yards (the same as Jeff Forston told you guys he gained.)

As for the other conditions you speculate about (weather, bounce, etc.) the players who did not switch to the ProV1x gained less than 4 yards in 2003.    

Again Tom, the sooner you come to grips with the reality of the situation, the sooner you will be able to put what the USGA told you in the proper context.  

____________________________________-

Bryan,  You are twisting my words.   I never said that the steel shaft wasnt strong enough.  I said the old equipment did not work efficiently at these high swing speeds compared to the new.  The example I keep citing is the state of the art ball, which spun way to much for today's swing speeds.  

As for the swing speeds of past, I think TEPaul can confirm that while the 109 mph test speed was no magic number, it did reflect the state of the game when the test was introduced.   I believe I read Frank Thomas himself  write that 109 mph was chosen because the top golfers of that time had a swing speed around or under this amount.  This of course doesnt mean that noone ever swung harder, but the USGA didnt completely pull this number out of a hat, but based on the top players.   When the USGA switched to test at 120 mph, they acknowledged how much things have changed with regard to swing speed.  

As for your estimation of where the distance comes from. it is strange you would question the reliability of my use of real statistics but then just completely make yours up.  What basis do you have for any of this?  

Let me make it simple.  Let's just take one year, 2002 to 2003.   In that year the driving distance increased around 6 yards.  With regard to particular balls, those who switched to the ProV1x (the 51 listed above) gained close to 10 yards, while the rest gained less than 4 yards.  

Now, how do these numbers fit into the breakdown that you made up above?  Are you still sticking with your estimations? Do you have any basis for your estimates?

[TEPaul]

"Again Tom, the sooner you come to grips with the reality of the situation, the sooner you will be able to put what the USGA told you in the proper context."

David:

You may as well just quit trying because your charts and your data and your assumptions and conclusions on the ProVx ball don't really impress me or apparently some others. You can couch it any old way you like but it doesn't seem like the Tech Center endorses your theory either. Tour driving stats certainly are facts but there are many variables that could've gone into those stats from 2002 and 2003 other than just the ball. Your approach here is somewhat like Tom MacWood's "postivism"---eg you have a preconceived opinion and conclusion and you find anything you can that looks like it supports it. I don't think that's a reliable way to go about this. Sorry. But you think whatever you want to about the ProVx and I'll do the same.

[DMoriarty]

No assumptions, no conclusions, just the facts.   The fact is that ProV1x is longer than the ProV1 at high swing speeds.   Ask the Tech Center.  I have no doubt that they will confirm this for you.

Other factors besides the ball in 2002 and 2003?  What other factors could possibly help ProV1x users much more than the non-ProV1x users?  Must have been a very fickle wind.  

The Tech Center doesnt endorse my theory?  More likely that you do not understand what the Tech Center told you.  

[Bryan Izatt]

If you guys actually read what I said, it would make this conversation much more productive.  

____________________________________-

Bryan,  You are twisting my words.    Really I never said that the steel shaft wasnt strong enough.  I said the old equipment did not work efficiently at these high swing speeds compared to the new.   What you said was "The equipment couldnt handle the modern swing and still produce consistent and efficient results." and "In the past the supporting equipment just wasnt technologically advanced to handle too much swing speed, now it is."  Perhaps I thought you meant more than the old equipment wasn't efficient based on those two statements.  Like the equipment "couldn't handle"  .  What did you intend there?  I don't want to twist its meaning.    The example I keep citing is the state of the art ball, which spun way to much for today's swing speeds.    So, you don't think the professional golfers of the day could control spin, to a degree, by placing the ball further forward in the stance, using lower loft drivers, and hit the ball with an upward angle of atteack.  Did every high speed swinger of the era hit balloon balls above some hypothetical speed?

As for the swing speeds of past, I think TEPaul can confirm that while the 109 mph test speed was no magic number, it did reflect the state of the game when the test was introduced.   I believe I read Frank Thomas himself  write that 109 mph was chosen because the top golfers of that time had a swing speed around or under this amount.  This of course doesnt mean that noone ever swung harder, but the USGA didnt completely pull this number out of a hat, but based on the top players.   When the USGA switched to test at 120 mph, they acknowledged how much things have changed with regard to swing speed.  

As for your estimation of where the distance comes from. it is strange you would question the reliability of my use of real statistics but then just completely make yours up.  What basis do you have for any of this?    I believe I started out by using the word "speculate"  three times.  I don't claim it is based on valid experimental data.  

What I was trying to demonstrate is that over the last years there were a number of factors that impacted the distance increases. Sadly, I'm beginning to understand that you don't accept that.    

Some of the numbers, COR and optimization, are based on stuff your favourite source, Frank Thomas, has published, although his web site articles are starting to get a little dated.  Others, such as the athleticism one is speculation.  Do you believe that someone who works out rigorously on a golf regimen wouldn't add 2 mph to their swing speed?  

I invite you to speculate which ones you think are wrong and what they might be.  Do you dismiss any of them or are we just talking about the scale?  It wouldn't take much to get the ball distance increase up to 10 if you'd like.  My point is that you're exclusive focus on the ball and the Tour stats for two years is misguided because you do not account for other variables in the equation.  Just for example,  for the 51 players you've identified as using V1x (and where did that information come from?), do you know how many swapped out their shafts in the intervening off-season, or during the year.  Do you know how many ramped up their workout regimen between seasons?  And, why do some see no gain and others see larger gains if there are no other factors involved.

Let me make it simple.  Let's just take one year, 2002 to 2003.   In that year the driving distance increased around 6 yards.  With regard to particular balls, those who switched to the ProV1x (the 51 listed above) gained close to 10 yards, while the rest gained less than 4 yards.  

Now, how do these numbers fit into the breakdown that you made up above?  Are you still sticking with your estimations? Do you have any basis for your estimates?

[TEPaul]

"No assumptions, no conclusions, just the facts.  The fact is that ProV1x is longer than the ProV1 at high swing speeds.   Ask the Tech Center.  I have no doubt that they will confirm this for you.

Other factors besides the ball in 2002 and 2003?  What other factors could possibly help ProV1x users much more than the non-ProV1x users?  Must have been a very fickle wind.  

The Tech Center doesnt endorse my theory?  More likely that you do not understand what the Tech Center told you."

David:

Whatever you say.  

All this conjecture on your part and you haven't even bothered to call them yourself. Pretty shoddy or pretty strange, I'd say.  

[Doug Siebert]

David:

I don't know. When I speak with them again, I'll ask them the same question the way you put it.

What do you make of Jeff Fortson's observation of his drives? He says he swings at 118 mph which is very close to the USGA's ODS mph protocol. If the ProV is on the ODS limitation line and Jeff says the ProVx goes 10 yards further than the ProV at his 118 mph then something isn't computing here. Again, if the ProV is on the ODS limitation line and the ProVx goes that much further at the same mph (118) then logically the ProVx would have to fail the ODS conformance test.

I've never asked them if they have specific data on distance through a swing speed spectrum for all balls and certainly for all ball and club combinations. I might ask them that. I frankly have no idea what the facts are there. But I would say this---that it's very possible that no one really knows as much as they could or should about POTENTIAL ball dynamics yet and that very well may be why the 2002 R&A/USGA Joint Statement of Principles says they reserve the right to control distance NO MATTER what the cause or reason, be it club and ball technology, athleticism (which they had never included before) or even course conditions. There really isn't any other possible cause, as far as I can see. Matter of fact I think the statement actually says 'for any reason'.

So at least legally as far as being accused of springing something on a manufacturer suddenly that statement should help defend them from that accusation in something like a restraint of trade lawsuit from a manufacturer.

I realize you're interested in learning and also conversing on this but I want to deal in reliable and scientifically tested data information. I'm just not interested any more in carrying on and and on with a discussion of the accuracy or reliablity of your various assumptions, hypotheticals and charts. There is no accuracy at all in information if it results from poor assumptions, in my opinion.

TEPaul,

As I'm sure you are aware, launch angle is of critical importance to achieving the best results with balls like the V1 and V1x.  The USGA's test, until very recently, used a persimmon driver that was undoubtedly not achieving ideal launch conditions.

Why is it so difficult to get you to accept that the Pro V1, Pro V1x, 1985 Pinnacle and 1995 Professional (and maybe even 1995 Tour Balata) could max out the USGA ODS using their persimmon club but would all react very differently when hit by someone with a 118 mph swing speed with a launch angle that works better for the modern ball?  And probably would react very differently for an otherwise identical 109 mph swing speed with the proper launch conditions.

Iron Byron is a robot, and produces the same swing every time.  If it produced a shot that launched at 9*, and the Pro V1x worked best with a 14* launch angle, it wouldn't be surprising that Iron Byron tests showed it to be under the ODS limit like balls have been for years and years, even though when hit with a 14* launch angle it worked much better than a Pro V1, or a 1985 Pinnacle.

Like I said, I saw the same thing as Jeff Fortson with the V1 to V1x transition, and have pretty much the same swing speed.  And no one can claim it was a change in equipment, I used the same driver from spring 2001 until Saturday when the head broke off on the 3rd tee (drive was 300+ down the middle, go figure)  I did notice on the remaining 4 tee shots where I'd normally hit driver that when using a 1 iron to tee off with a rusty March swing it probably would have made no difference if I used a Pro V1x or a Haskell

[TEPaul]

Doug:

What I asked the tech center within the last month was if, in their opinion, there is some "explosive" effect with any of today's conforming golf balls at some swing speed. They said they believe there is not and that the distance production through swing speeds is basically linear. I also asked them if they felt a low spinning Pinnacle from years ago would go about as far as a low spin ball today with today's equipment and they said yes. The trajectory is apparently the key. I am aware of the significance of launch angle and a number of other modern improvements such as COR, optimization (which probably includes launch angle) etc. This discussion however seems to have been one intended by the thread's poster to discuss the golf ball itself, and more particularly the ProVx. Are you under the impression that Iron Bryon or the robotic golf club used in the outdoor test is the only test the USGA uses to test golf ball performance? If you or Jeff Fortson or David Moriarty feel there is some misunderstanding or some misinformation here I suggest you call 908-234-2300 and ask Ellen or Joan to connect you to the Tech Center. I suggest you inform them of the anomalie you two have experienced with the ProVx to see if they can explain it to you technologically. Perhaps your statements and your questions will elicit far different answers for some reason than mine did.    

[Doug Siebert]

TEPaul,

Until recently when the USGA switched to a metal headed driver and 120 mph swing speed, did they ever use anything other than Iron Bryon swinging the same persimmon driver at the same 109 mph when they were testing golf balls against the ODS and initial velocity limitations?

Of course they did tests with real golfers at times and of course they probably experimented with many other settings and clubs for Iron Byron, but it would be news to me if they ever used the results of such tests against the ODS or initial velocity limitations in terms of accepting or rejecting golf balls.

The big problem in the USGA's story that a 1985 Pinnacle would go as far as V1x if hit with the same equipment is that the Long Driving champions.   People can claim the pros are only hitting longer with today's ball because they switched from a balata to a distance ball, but what about the Long Drive guys?  They were using Pinnacles in 1985, and if all they needed to do to get distance like today is use a much higher launch angle (they already had the swing speed) you would think at least one of them would have figured it out.  Instead they were all using very low lofted drivers.  They are flying the ball 50+ yards further than they used to.  What is that, COR?

[TEPaul]

"TEPaul,
Until recently when the USGA switched to a metal headed driver and 120 mph swing speed, did they ever use anything other than Iron Bryon swinging the same persimmon driver at the same 109 mph when they were testing golf balls against the ODS and initial velocity limitations?"

No, they used a persimmon driver and a swing speed of 109 mph. The driver they use now is a metal driver which is listed in their ODS test protocol specs (you can look it up on their website). But if you're asking if they used other ball performance tests that relate to distance other than Iron Byron, yes they did and do. Iron Byron is an outdoor test mechanism they use to compare other indoor ball and club performance and conformance tests to.

[TEPaul]

"They were using Pinnacles in 1985, and if all they needed to do to get distance like today is use a much higher launch angle (they already had the swing speed) you would think at least one of them would have figured it out.  Instead they were all using very low lofted drivers.  They are flying the ball 50+ yards further than they used to.  What is that, COR?"

COR is probably a contributing factor today compared to 1985 (I think we may be able to accurately assume it's increased from 1985). Obviously there are other contributing factors today other than the golf ball.

Yes, you would think at least one of them would've figured out to use something other than a very low lofted club, wouldn't you? Are you certain all long driving champions used very low lofted clubs in 1985 and if you think you are sure, I might ask how is it that you're sure of that? Did you go around checking the lofts of all their drivers? If they are flying the ball 50+ yards farther today perhaps you should go check if they're all still using very low lofted drivers.  

[Bryan Izatt]

Maybe the LD guys were using low loft drivers and playing the ball forward to achieve an upward angle of attack and low spin and that's how they optimized distance.  Perhaps they didn't want optimum carry;  depending on the competition location, they may have wanted to increase roll at the sacrifice of some carry.  There's too many variables.

[David Ober]

No assumptions, no conclusions, just the facts.   The fact is that ProV1x is longer than the ProV1 at high swing speeds.   Ask the Tech Center.  I have no doubt that they will confirm this for you.

Other factors besides the ball in 2002 and 2003?  What other factors could possibly help ProV1x users much more than the non-ProV1x users?  Must have been a very fickle wind.  

The Tech Center doesnt endorse my theory?  More likely that you do not understand what the Tech Center told you.  

Wait a minute, let me see if I get this straight: There are actually people out there that doubt that the Pro V1x is significantly longer the the Pro V1?

That's funny. At high swing speeds, it's the longest ball ever. Amazing actually.

[David Ober]

TEPaul,

Until recently when the USGA switched to a metal headed driver and 120 mph swing speed, did they ever use anything other than Iron Bryon swinging the same persimmon driver at the same 109 mph when they were testing golf balls against the ODS and initial velocity limitations?

Of course they did tests with real golfers at times and of course they probably experimented with many other settings and clubs for Iron Byron, but it would be news to me if they ever used the results of such tests against the ODS or initial velocity limitations in terms of accepting or rejecting golf balls.

The big problem in the USGA's story that a 1985 Pinnacle would go as far as V1x if hit with the same equipment is that the Long Driving champions.   People can claim the pros are only hitting longer with today's ball because they switched from a balata to a distance ball, but what about the Long Drive guys?  They were using Pinnacles in 1985, and if all they needed to do to get distance like today is use a much higher launch angle (they already had the swing speed) you would think at least one of them would have figured it out.  Instead they were all using very low lofted drivers.  They are flying the ball 50+ yards further than they used to.  What is that, COR?

MUCH stronger long drive participants (many of whom are on steroids), lighter shafts, longer balls, higher COR. They ALL combine to make the long drive guys of today much longer than the guys from 1985.

[Bryan Izatt]

No assumptions, no conclusions, just the facts.   The fact is that ProV1x is longer than the ProV1 at high swing speeds.   Ask the Tech Center.  I have no doubt that they will confirm this for you.

Other factors besides the ball in 2002 and 2003?  What other factors could possibly help ProV1x users much more than the non-ProV1x users?  Must have been a very fickle wind.  

The Tech Center doesnt endorse my theory?  More likely that you do not understand what the Tech Center told you.  

Wait a minute, let me see if I get this straight: There are actually people out there that doubt that the Pro V1x is significantly longer the the Pro V1?

That's funny. At high swing speeds, it's the longest ball ever. Amazing actually.

David,

Is it the longest ball ever for you?  Or do you have any data that it is the longest ball ever for everyone or anyone.  I'm sure there are a number of ball manufacturers who would choose to disagree with you.  The question is, who's got the data to back up the claim.

There was an article in T&Ll Golf magazine about Hot Stix Golf who do club fitting and optimization.  They claim to have measured ball performance under controlled conditions.  They also recommend an ideal ball for those people they fit (pros included)based on their ball testing and their fitting of their customers.  I doubt very much that they recommend the Pro V1x for everybody.

[David Ober]

No assumptions, no conclusions, just the facts.   The fact is that ProV1x is longer than the ProV1 at high swing speeds.   Ask the Tech Center.  I have no doubt that they will confirm this for you.

Other factors besides the ball in 2002 and 2003?  What other factors could possibly help ProV1x users much more than the non-ProV1x users?  Must have been a very fickle wind.  

The Tech Center doesnt endorse my theory?  More likely that you do not understand what the Tech Center told you.  

Wait a minute, let me see if I get this straight: There are actually people out there that doubt that the Pro V1x is significantly longer the the Pro V1?

That's funny. At high swing speeds, it's the longest ball ever. Amazing actually.

David,

Is it the longest ball ever for you?  Or do you have any data that it is the longest ball ever for everyone or anyone.  I'm sure there are a number of ball manufacturers who would choose to disagree with you.  The question is, who's got the data to back up the claim.

There was an article in T&Ll Golf magazine about Hot Stix Golf who do club fitting and optimization.  They claim to have measured ball performance under controlled conditions.  They also recommend an ideal ball for those people they fit (pros included)based on their ball testing and their fitting of their customers.  I doubt very much that they recommend the Pro V1x for everybody.

My evidence is anecdotal only and is based on many, many tournament and casual rounds with friends and competitors with swing speeds in the 115 to 125 mph range.

The ball is a long one for me, though I'm a below average length player for my ability level and have a swing speed only in the 108 - 111 area most of the time.

The ball is most definitely NOT for everybody. However, I think you would be VERY hard-pressed to find 1 in 100 golfers with swing speeds above 110 that will tell you that the ProV1x is not consistently and significantly longer off the tee than the ProV1.

THAT is what I was responding to.

[TEPaul]

"There was an article in T&Ll Golf magazine about Hot Stix Golf who do club fitting and optimization.  They claim to have measured ball performance under controlled conditions.  They also recommend an ideal ball for those people they fit (pros included)based on their ball testing and their fitting of their customers.  I doubt very much that they recommend the Pro V1x for everybody."

Bryan:

There you go. Just keep telling these guys who are so fixated on the ProVx as the sole contributor to distance increase of all players who swing faster than Xmph, or old ODS plus Xmph or new ODS Plus Xmph. As the Tech Center and you  recognize there are a lot more variables in distance production with even high mph swing speeds than just that. Some of these fellows on here are begining to sound like they think all golfers with swings speed of ODS plus some mph are robots.

Anything but.

[Brent Hutto]

I'll tell you one thing about the ProV1x. If you have a 75mph clubhead speed with a 5-iron and catch a ProV1x a little thin and toward the toe, it will carry about 90 yards and fall out of the sky like a ruptured duck. I played nine holes with one a couple of times and it is the most anemic ball I've ever seen if you can't compress it with the clubface.

Low-speed impact with a driver (88-90mph) the ProV1x will carry and roll like a Pinnacle or something but it don't work off the irons for a short knocker. Quite amazing, actually. The regular old ProV1 works fine (although not what I actually use).

[Dan Herrmann]

TEPaul - you're absolutely right about the ProV1x not being the sole 'problem'.

I sometimes buy cheapie Pinnacles in the 3 dozen packs, especially at this time of year because I don't want to lose a $3 golf ball.  IMHO, those cheap Pinnacles go just as far as a ProV1.

The big difference is around the green, not off the tee.

For the other 97% of golfers, I'm reminded of a TV comercial Nike ran when I worked there.  Essentially, it showed 2 pitchers spending all their free time taking batting practice - why?  Because "Chicks dig the long ball".  

[David Ober]

TEPaul - you're absolutely right about the ProV1x not being the sole 'problem'.

I sometimes buy cheapie Pinnacles in the 3 dozen packs, especially at this time of year because I don't want to lose a $3 golf ball.  IMHO, those cheap Pinnacles go just as far as a ProV1.

The big difference is around the green, not off the tee.

For the other 97% of golfers, I'm reminded of a TV comercial Nike ran when I worked there.  Essentially, it showed 2 pitchers spending all their free time taking batting practice - why?  Because "Chicks dig the long ball".  

So wait a minute here. Moriarty isn't saying that the Pro V1x is solely responsible for the distance explosion, is he?

[DMoriarty]

So wait a minute here. Moriarty isn't saying that the Pro V1x is solely responsible for the distance explosion, is he?

Of course not.  

TEPaul has this notion that all of the newer low spin balls travel the exact same distance when hit at the same swing speed, all else being equal.   Not only that, but he also thinks that the old low spin balls (the old Pinnacle and such from past generations) also would fly exactly the same distance as the new balls (ProV1, ProV1x, etc.) when hit at the same swing speed, all else being equal.  

I dont think Bryan Izatt believes TEPaul's crazy notions for a minute (do you Bryan?) yet he still feels compelled to repeatedly point out that there are multiple other variables which may also be partially responsible for the increasing distances.  But noone is denying this.

Hope you had a good round on Sunday.  

[Bryan Izatt]

TEPaul - you're absolutely right about the ProV1x not being the sole 'problem'.

I sometimes buy cheapie Pinnacles in the 3 dozen packs, especially at this time of year because I don't want to lose a $3 golf ball.  IMHO, those cheap Pinnacles go just as far as a ProV1.

The big difference is around the green, not off the tee.

For the other 97% of golfers, I'm reminded of a TV comercial Nike ran when I worked there.  Essentially, it showed 2 pitchers spending all their free time taking batting practice - why?  Because "Chicks dig the long ball".  

So wait a minute here. Moriarty isn't saying that the Pro V1x is solely responsible for the distance explosion, is he?

Well, maybe.    He started off earlier in the thread saying "The statistics are overwhelming.  We have seen an explosive increase in distance among the elite players with the invention and use of the the new low spin balls."  That later morphed into Tour players who switched to the V1x in 2003 got 10 more yards solely from the ball.  Some of us feel that there are other factors at play too, either in the overall distance increases in the last 10 years or in the specific 2002-2203 case.