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

[DMoriarty]

Whatever the case it seems the USGA’s Tech Center really does not agree with either of you. David, do you think your trolling the Internet for driving distance Tour stats and using them to construct your own hypothetical graphs is more scientifically reliable than the USGA’s multi-million dollar Ball and Equipment Test Center?

Jeff, do you think your personal observation with a ProV and a ProVx is more scientifically reliable than the USGA’s Tech Center?

TomP:

No, I dont think that "trolling the Internet for driving distance Tour stats and using them to construct your own hypothetical graphs is more scientifically reliable than the USGA’s multi-million dollar Ball and Equipment Test Center."

But then I dont think that anything I have said contradicts anything I've heard recently from the USGA, including the information you relayed from the USGA.   You said that the USGA told you that as swing speed increases, the distance increases are largely linear.  I've tried to take them at your word since you said this.  

But they did not tell you that distance statistics for different balls would all be on the same line, did they?   In other words, they didnt say that all of the new low spin balls flew identical distances at any given swing speed, did they?  

Nor did they tell you that the linear distance increase per mph swing increase would be the same for every ball, did they?  In other words, they didnt tell you that the slope of all such distance progressions for all the new low spin balls would be the same, did they?  

A linear distance increase for each ball just doesnt mean that all balls will perform the same at all speeds.  

For example, assume that the ProV1x and the ProV1 both are at the ODS Limit, but the ProV1x  gains slightly more distance than the ProV1 for every incrimental swing speed increase.   In this scenario . . .
. . . Every golfer with a swing speed over the ODS testing speed would gain distance with the ProV1x compared to the ProV1; and
. . . Every golfer with a swing speed below the ODS testing speed [or wherever the lines crossed] would loose distance compared to the ProV1.  

Id be glad to chart this out for you if you like.  
 

[DMoriarty]

"They knew that COR of the club was only a small part of it. or at least they should have."

David:

I've just sort of been skimming some of your posts but that remark almost makes me laugh. How do you know that? You've been making remarks on here on these distance related subjects and threads with a degree of certitude that seems almost comical. Who do you suppose understands better and knows more regarding the degree to which COR increase contributed the distance increase, you or Frank Thomas?  

I am glad my posts give you a chuckle, but as I have said repeatedly . . . Tom, I am well aware that Frank Thomas knows more than me.  Much, much, more than me.  

In fact, the reason I think they knew or should have known the impact of limiting ODS is that I have heard and/or read Frank Thomas say what he thought the impact would be.

As for my certitude, I am not certain of any of this stuff.  I am just trying to understand it, which is why I keep conversing about it.  

How about you?  Are you certain that the ProV1x does not fly further than the ProV1 at very high swing speeds?  

[DMoriarty]

 Since everyone seems to love my charts so much, here is another.   This one shows data for the 51 players who I have reason to believe switched to the ProV1x in 2003.    It also includes linear trend lines.  Note that only every other name showed up because if the size of the thing, I guess.  



While I am no statistican and havent run standard deviations etc., it sure looks like those who already hit it longer are generally benefiting the most from the ProV1x.  

Disclaimer, I realize that this is not a controlled group, etc. etc.   I am just doing what I can with what I have.  

Does anyone esle out there not believe that the ProV1x flies further than then ProV1 at very high swing speeds?

[TEPaul]

PeteL;

The implication of your post above would seem to be that the USGA Tech Center is completely oblivious to what kind of clubs and golf balls elite golfers are using in combination. Your implication would seem to be that they're testing in some vacuum that has nothing to do with the real world. They have test mechanisms up there that test all kinds of variables of clubs and balls in combination. Iron Byron is not one of them. After all it was Frank Thomas who invented and created the "optimization" test.

[TEPaul]

"Since everyone seems to love my charts so much, here is another."

David:

I doubt you should go that far. Personally, for reliablilty I prefer the "Scientific Method"

[TEPaul]

"But they did not tell you that distance statistics for different balls would all be on the same line, did they?  In other words, they didnt say that all of the new low spin balls flew identical distances at any given swing speed, did they?"  

I believe what they said was the new lower spin balls are basically linear in distance production through the swing speed spectrum. I think we agree what that means. And if that were the case then how could one of them like a ProVx absolutely explode in distance in relation to the rest at some swing speed? That wouldn't be linear in a distance production sense through the swing speed spectrum, would it?

However, apparently there are some new balls that aren't that near the ODS limitation and are probably shorter than most of the others for whatever reason, and probably right on through the swing speed spectrum. But that isn't apropos to this discusion.  

[TEPaul]

"For example, assume that the ProV1x and the ProV1 both are at the ODS Limit, but the ProV1x  gains slightly more distance than the ProV1 for every incrimental swing speed increase.  In this scenario . . .
. . . Every golfer with a swing speed over the ODS testing speed would gain distance with the ProV1x compared to the ProV1; and
. . . Every golfer with a swing speed below the ODS testing speed [or wherever the lines crossed] would loose distance compared to the ProV1.  

Id be glad to chart this out for you if you like."

David:

I appreciate your offer but no thanks. I'm quite certain you can produce charts and graphs for any kind of assumptions you choose to make. I'm not all that interested in assumptions. But I am interested in data from scientifically controlled I&B tests.  

[TEPaul]

"How about you?  Are you certain that the ProV1x does not fly further than the ProV1 at very high swing speeds?"

David:

I doubt I'd say I'm certain, simply that I'd prefer to rely on information and opinions from the USGA Tech Center for things like that rather than contributors on this website's discussion group who are simply trying to understand this stuff and converse about it.  

They tell me at the USGA Tech Center they've been trying to understand all this stuff too for years and they feel they now know a lot or a lot more so for some odd reason I feel they probably are a bit ahead of us with I&B data, information and understanding.

Would I like to see the contributors to this website's discussion group come up with solutions to this distance increase?

Now that really would be interesting to behold. I'd hope they also had one helluva bankroll to defend themselves from massive manufacturer lawsuits.  

[Bryan Izatt]

"How about you?  Are you certain that the ProV1x does not fly further than the ProV1 at very high swing speeds?"

David:

I doubt I'd say I'm certain, simply that I'd prefer to rely on information and opinions from the USGA Tech Center for things like that rather than contributors on this website's discussion group who are simply trying to understand this stuff and converse about it.  

I, for one, would agree that the V1x goes further under some set of launch conditions.  I'm quibbling about how much and whether it should be described as explosive.  

Tom,

Do you suppose the USGA will ever release data about distance performance by ball launch speed for each manufacturers ball model.  I doubt it.  We'll be lucky if we ever see even anonymized summary data.  Did you mention lawsuits.  Sadly, this particular question willl likely never be "scientifically answered".

[TEPaul]

Bryan:

You mentioned data availability from the USGA Tech Center and lawsuits in the same post. Whatever you do don't blame the USGA for lawsuits or the prospect of them over I&B matters. In this area of I&B with the manufacturers I'm pretty confident the USGA would never be anything other than a defendant!  

[DMoriarty]

I believe what they said was the new lower spin balls are basically linear in distance production through the swing speed spectrum. I think we agree what that means.

Actually Tom, I dont think we are talking about the same thing.   Or perhaps we are just applying it differently.  

My understanding is that when they say the distance increase is linear throughout the swing speed spectrum, they are talking about the distance increases of each single type of ball.   The Strata could have one linear distance progression; the ProV1 another; the ProV1x another.  

You seem to be saying not only is the distance increase linear throughout the swing speed spectrum, but also that every ball which tests right at the ODS limit would fly the same distance no matter what the swing speed.

The bolded part isnt about linearity at all, but rather is an assumption about the lack of differences in distance characteristics between different types of balls.   For some reason, you are combining or confusing this with linearity.

Or maybe I am wrong and all of these new balls fly exactly the same distance under identical conditions.  But I dont think so.  

And if that were the case then how could one of them like a ProVx absolutely explode in distance in relation to the rest at some swing speed? That wouldn't be linear in a distance production sense through the swing speed spectrum, would it?

I think you are mistaken here Tom.   If the ProV1x had a steeper slope-- meaning a larger distance increase per mph increase-- then it very well could be much longer than the rest at high enough swing speeds.  

Further, if the distances are truly linear across the swing speed spectrum, then the opposite would apply at slower swing speeds.   In other words, the ProV1x could well be much shorter than other conforming balls at a slow enough swing speed.  

Like it or not, this is where a charts come in handy just to show you what two linear distance progressions would look like through the swing speed range.   The numbers are irrelevant.



 

[DMoriarty]

I, for one, would agree that the V1x goes further under some set of launch conditions.  I'm quibbling about how much and whether it should be described as explosive.  

Okay Brian, dont call it explosive if you dont like the term.   But when the best players in the world gain 5, 10, 15, even 20 yards overnight, that qualifies as an explosive distance gain to me.  

[TEPaul]

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.

[DMoriarty]

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.

The new ODS limit didnt go into effect until June of 2004, did it?  Both the ProV1 and ProV1x hit the market before that and would thus have been initially tested at the old limit.   So the ProV1 could well be substantially below the new ODS limit.  Indeed, the ProV1x might not be at the limit either, which is a scary thought.  

Also, different equipment and factors could make a difference, but I doubt that much, but I really dont know.

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'.

That they explicitly included "athleticism" was the most positive part of the statement, as far as I am concerned.

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.

The linear distance charts were for demonstration only, to highlight my assumptions as compared to yours.  The rest of the distance charts, including the ones above, are based on actual data.

[TEPaul]

"But when the best players in the world gain 5, 10, 15, even 20 yards overnight, that qualifies as an explosive distance gain to me."

David:

You just keep saying that over and over and over. You really just don't get it. The reasons why that happened has been explained to you over and over and over again. With something like your 20/20 hindsight it might seem so easy to you to have controlled all that back then. Some of us lived through those times and played golf through those times, and we know what happened during those times. Considering all the odd circumstances extant at that time it probably just wasn't reasonable to have expected that they could've caught all this before it happened and once it happened and within their own Rules that really was a problem to deal with.

I still don't know how old you are but to me you more and more appear to be like a spoilt child who blames people in the past for things you didn't experience and therefore don't really understand or at least don't really appreciate.  

You basically have said you want a solution to all this yesterday or that if you'd been able to affect things back then you would have solved this all back then 10-15 years ago. I guarantee you if you'd played golf and lived through those times the way some of us did you wouldn't have been anymore aware of the things that were about to happen and why then anyone else back then was.

Why don't you just stop endlessly criticizing the USGA as you have been and expend all this passion and energy you seem to have on this issue with helping them and supporting them to do what it appears they are getting ready to do. What the manufacturers have to say about what they propose is absolutely the key to all this in the future and in my opinon if you or anyone else don't understand that increasingly obvious fact then you don't know much.

I'm definitely not trying to be personally critical of you, but I may be of some of your opinions. That's what this place is all about, or should be.

[TEPaul]

" The rest of the distance charts, including the ones above, are based on actual data."

So what? The actual data you're using could have so many extraneous variables attached to it as to prove virtually meaningless to your point or your apparent conclusions.

'Based on' actual data? Is that the use of the words "based on" as they use them in Hollywood? "Based on fact" often comes out completely unrecognizeable compared to what actually happened.

What you should do is take your assumptions and hypotheticals and charts and speak with the USGA Tech Center about them, their accuracy and conclusions. Saying things on here like they may not speak to you or you think they must have better things to do is getting to be a cop-out. Why do you think they'd be willing to speak to me and not to you?

[DMoriarty]

"But when the best players in the world gain 5, 10, 15, even 20 yards overnight, that qualifies as an explosive distance gain to me."

David:

You just keep saying that over and over and over. You really just don't get it. The reasons why that happened has been explained to you over and over and over again. With something like your 20/20 hindsight it might seem so easy to you to have controlled all that back then. Some of us lived through those times and played golf through those times, and we know what happened during those times. Considering all the odd circumstances extant at that time it probably just wasn't reasonable to have expected that they could've caught all this before it happened and once it happened and within their own Rules that really was a problem to deal with.

I still don't know how old you are but to me you more and more appear to be like a spoilt child who blames people in the past for things you didn't experience and therefore don't really understand or at least don't really appreciate.  

You basically have said you want a solution to all this yesterday or that if you'd been able to affect things back then you would have solved this all back then 10-15 years ago. I guarantee you if you'd played golf and lived through those times the way some of us did you wouldn't have been anymore aware of the things that were about to happen and why then anyone else back then was.

Why don't you just stop endlessly criticizing the USGA as you have been and expend all this passion and energy you seem to have on this issue with helping them and supporting them to do what it appears they are getting ready to do. What the manufacturers have to say about what they propose is absolutely the key to all this in the future and in my opinon if you or anyone else don't understand that increasingly obvious fact then you don't know much.

I'm definitely not trying to be personally critical of you, but I may be of some of your opinions. That's what this place is all about, or should be.

Tom, I am not exactly sure what set you off this time, but would nonetheless appreciate if in the future you would do me the courtesy of refraining from the personal attacks and name calling. Thanks.  

You are acting like I am making up numbers or throwing out some absurd notion of something that happened long ago.  To the contrary, I was alive and well and posting on this board when many of the best players in the world gained 5, 10, 15, even 20 yards overnight.  This is literally how much many of the top players gained in 2003 when they started playing the ProV1x.

This is neither wild speculation on my part nor is it a criticism of the USGA.  It is a fact.  Many of them started the 2003 season in Kapalua with the ProV1x and BOOM, an overnight distance explosion.  

Another chart for you.  These are actual distance gains from 2002 to 2003 of the following players, from the PGA website.  After spending substantial time researching it.  I believe these are the vast majority of players who switched to the ProV1x in 2003.  


The bar chart is just for you, Bryan.

[TEPaul]

"Tom, I am not exactly sure what set you off this time, but would nonetheless appreciate if in the future you would do me the courtesy of refraining from the personal attacks and name calling. Thanks."

David:

One of these days you should come to realize something pretty fundamental. That is I'm not attacking you personally. All I'm doing is attacking some of your ridiculously unsupportable opinions on so much to do with this distance issue and its solutions. You should certainly understand the difference or at least I hope you can. So often on here and on so many threads you seem to eventually restore to calling the disagreements others have with your opinions a personal attack on you. Nothing of the kind----strong disagreement with some of the things you say, that's about all.

[DMoriarty]

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.  Oh well, life goes on.   Setting aside this little aside and back to the discussion . . . ,

Tom, you are wrong about this.  There was a distance explosion in 2003 among big hitters, at least those who switched to the ProV1x.  The facts are irrefutable.  I know this doesnt jibe with your understanding of what you think the USGA told you about the modern ball, but it in fact happened and is not some wild speculation or spoilt fit on my part.   Your failure to come to grips with this and other facts is undermining your ability to fully understand the distance issue.  

[Jeff Fortson]

To be honest guys...

I am ready to agree to fu*kin' disagree.  It is obvious that no one is changing their minds here.  It's obvious Tom feels a need to protect the USGA and to divert criticism back to the critics.  I support the USGA in their cause as much as you, Tom.  I will back them through this period of uncertainty.  They just better get it right!

My AVERAGE swing speed is 118mph.  I can reach back for more at will.  The ProV1x carries further and rolls further for me.  It also doesn't spin too much on approach shots like the regular ProV1 can at times.  There is nothing fundamentally wrong with the numbers or science, it is fact.  I could show you in person on a driving range if you like.


Jeff F.

P.S.:  This topic has given me one giant headache!  

I'm done!

[Bryan Izatt]

Another chart for you.  These are actual distance gains from 2002 to 2003 of the following players, from the PGA website.  After spending substantial time researching it.  I believe these are the vast majority of players who switched to the ProV1x in 2003.  


The bar chart is just for you, Bryan.  

Thanks David, it's much easier to interpret.    Now, do your sources of information tell you whether Hidemichi Tanaka got it, and dropped the V1x, as he saw no improvement.  Or Jose Coceres held on for dear life because he got a huge gain at about the same swing speed as Hidemichi.  Curious. Do you suppose other factors might be involved

Jeff F.

P.S.:  This topic has given me one giant headache!  Take two tylenol, rest in bed and don't open this thread again till tomorrow.    By the way, I don't dispute that you hit the V1x further or that it's 8 to 10 yards.  I just wish you or someone could get some real data across the swing speed range to confirm or deny David's irrefutable evidence.

David,

 Tom, you are wrong about this.  There was a distance explosion in 2003 among big hitters, at least those who switched to the ProV1x.  The facts are irrefutable.  If you don't control for other factors the data you've shown is easily refuted from a scientific point of view.

Re your hypothetical chart of the different slopes for the ProV1 vs the the V1x, I don't dispute that this is a possible alignment.  I suspect that when the USGA told Tom that the relationship was linear they were reporting on a relationship that aggregated all the balls they tested.  The diagram would have a scatter diagram look through which they would probably statistically fit a straight line.  In experimental data collection you never get points that fall exactly on a linear line.   The USGA is never going to release data for individual model balls.  (see, Tom, I didn't mention lawsuits  )

[Bryan Izatt]

But, I think it is erroneous to say that the equipment solely led to swing speed increases.  In the last ten years there has been a significant bulking up of pro golfers precipitated by Tiger and his workout regimen.  How many current players work out vs how many do you suppose worked out in Nicklaus' era or Hogan's era.  As in every other sport, basketball, baseball, hockey, football, track, etc the athletes are demonstrably bigger, stronger and faster.

I dont think many did because I dont think in was as beneficial for them to do so.  The equipment couldnt handle the modern swing and still produce consistent and efficient results.  Wow  The steel shaft driver couldn't handle higher swing speed?  How's that?  It was only recently that graphite shafts could handle high swing speeds.  If you mean the persimmon head caused too much dispersion on off-centre hits at higher speeds, how can you support that?  I played persimmon for many years (yes I remember you told me I'm old) and I don't remember it being wildly erratic compared to today.  And I played with and against some long hitters in thos days who were able to keep the ball in play and be long.  Or, are you speculating that there is an explosive dispersion effect at high speeds with persimmon?  

Besides, if you look at single player changes in distance you can control for athleticism to a great degree.  A few players have been around 20 years, many more have been around 10 years, a lot have been around for 5 years.   The long players of the past have gotten much longer with the new technology.   Freddie Couples and Davis Love are not "bigger, stronger, and faster" than they were in their prime, but they hit the ball a heck of a lot farther then they used to.   Likewise for many of the players who have not been around as long.  Eliminate the young guns from your charts and you still see the same progression of distance.   And these guys are past their physical prime.

I think that has more to do with swing speed increases than technology of the driver does.  But I have no data to support or refute that thought. I have seen claims by club designers that going to a lighter graphite shaft from steel might gain you a few mph in swing speed.  

Lighter and longer shafts certain made a different, but the main factor I am talking about is the ball.  Swing too hard at a high spinning ball and you get diminishing returns because the ball will balloon and also because any sidespin will be amplified.  Also the large sweet spots make precise hits less necessary thus allowing them to swing harder without worrying about being a cm off the center of the club.  Also high speed shaft technology has produced more stable and resilients shafts.    Just that fact that the clubs hold together without breaking at these swing speeds is impressive and a product of technology.

 

Every era had its long hitters.  Are you suggesting that those players (e.g. Mike Souchak or even Jack) didn't have swing speeds of 125mph?  

Yes I am suggesting that the successful big hitters of past eras did not swing nearly as hard as the big hitters do now.  And this includes Jack. Watch the tapes.  I respectfully disagree.  There were grip it and rip it types in those days too.  You can't tell by looking at film.  If you look at Ernie or Freddie or DL III on film you'd swear they're hardly making a pass at the ball.  But, they still generate high club speeds.   Could they have?  Probably, and maybe occassionally they did, but for the most part swinging that fast just was not worth it.  Now could they hit one over a range fence to show off when they wanted to?  Yes, but on the course it was not an efficient way to succeed.  

To paraphrase Tom Wishon, the golfer is the engine, the club is the drive shaft.  A more powerful engine can move the driveshaft faster.  

 

A perfect analogy.   A more powerful engine could move the drive shaft faster, but it would be foolish to use too much power unless the drive shaft, differential, transmission, tires, etc. all are strong enough and technologically advanced enough to handle the power.  

In the past the supporting equipment just wasnt technologically advanced to handle too much swing speed, now it is.    Ah well, another point of disagreement.  Do you really think steel shafts and persimmon heads weren't stong enough to handle higher swing speeds or deliver the head back to the ball at high speed?  It's only a couple of years since Tiger was using a steel shaft and a relatively small headed driver.  It wasn't so long ago he could hit that steel shafted tiny little Titleist 3 wood further than most could with a driver, and with ridiculously high swing speeds.  Does your Tour historical information suggest that persimmmon age pros hit fewer fairways in regulation than pros do today?   That is why they are swing so much harder now, because their driveshafts and wheels can handle it.  

Don't you think it would be reasonable to understand the various causes of the effect?  There are at least five causes for the distance effect - the golfer, the shaft, the clubhead, the ball, and the agronomic condtioning of the courses. You should care about understanding each, before you regulate one, don't you think?

When I said "who cares" I meant that I dont care if the gains are 100 percent from swing speed increases, the game is still out of balance.   As for what caused the imbalance I do care, but not to the extent that I support endlessly testing and speculating about what caused what.  We have problem that needs to be fixed yesterday, and the longer we wait the harder it is to fix.

 It makes sense to me to understand the causes of the out-of-balance before regulating the implements.  A few years ago the USGA was sure it was spring-like effect, and that hasn't exactly held back the tide.  I never said regulate the athlete.  That would be silly (other than regulating drug usage).  

They knew that COR of the club was only a small part of it. or at least they should have.    Man, I'm glad I'm not part of the USGA.  So much flack.  How should they have known it?  Should they have spent more of the membership fees on research to try to preempt the manufacturers?  How would they know where the manufacturers were going to go in their research?  Did you know that they regulated the COR without actually doing any testing at all - based solely on a physics/mathematical model?  Maybe they learned a lesson there about taking a more informed approach.  

Nice chart, although it would be better presented if it was a stacked bar graph.  Like all such comparisons the flaw is that it's not a controlled experiment.  The other variables that might affect distance increases between the two years were not controlled.  For instance, did any of them change driver heads or shafts; did they optimize; did they increase their workout regimen; were the measured holes on the same courses in the same shape in the same weather conditions?  The data is scientifically unreliable if you don't control the variables.  And before you rebut, I don't disagree that the V1x is longer for your sample population than the V1.  The data just doesn't prove how much it is.  

Sorry you dont like my choice of chart type,  when you do yours, feel free to use stacked bar graphs.  

Unfortunately I cant control the variables but I do the best I can with what I have.  I didn't claim that the chart was scientific or that it should be used to determine the exact increase in distance gained by the PrV1x for big hitters.  

But that being said, to dismiss these results is entirely as unscientific is disingenuine.  All the other variables you mention do not come close to explaining the bulk of these increases.  I didn't dismiss the the data.  I think the conclusion you draw from it is not scientifically sound.  And, yes, I do believe the V1x is longer for some players than the V1 is.  Jeff for example.  The data does not allow somebody to reliably come to the conclusion you have though.  I understand it's the best you've got. I'd like to find better data before urging the USGA to leap to regulatory action.
 
My main interest was in controlling for athleticism.   Now if you come back to suggest that all these players simultaneously changed their workout regimin at the same time to produce these results, then I know you aren't really being genuine.  No I wouldn't suggest that.  I would suggest that since Tiger arrived on the scene, there has been a general move by the rest of the Tour to work out and increase their athleticism so they could compete.  Not strangely, that phenomenon conincides pretty reasonably with the large distance increases.    

[Bryan Izatt]

For fun, here is my speculation about the causes of distance increases.  As a starting point I speculate that average tour driving distance has increased by about 30 yards over the last 20 years.  I also speculate the following:

1. Moving from steel shafted drivers to longer graphite drivers has resulted in a swing speed increase of 2 or 3 mph.  This translates into a distance increase of  5 yards.  

2.  The introduction of hi-COR drivers raising the COR from .78 to .83 resulted in the gain of maybe 6 yards

3.  An increase in athleticism resulted in an average of 2 or 3 mph increase in swing speed for a gain of another 5 yards.

4.  Changes in agronomic conditioning of tour courses in those twenty years lead to an increase of 5 yards of roll.

5. The optimization of launch angle for a given spin rate gained another 2 yards.

6.  The introduction of the new low spin / hard core ball adds (by process of elimination)  7 yards to the 30 yard gain.

Or we could speculate that the other gains wouldn't have been possible without the low spin hard ball?

So, what's the fix?  Grow longer fairways? Regulate the COR back to .78?  Regulate the removal of graphite shafts?  Regulate athleticism?  Regulate the ball distance back?

Seems to me someone will be a little miffed with any of these approaches.  Yet they've all contributed to the "problem".  Is it any wonder the USGA might be struggling with this.

The likely outcome, since they've already regulated COR, and the length of the shaft, is to regulate the ball further.  And, to regulate it beyond its contribution to the problem.  Ideally, the regulation should stipulate a linear relationship to swing speed, so no player is advantaged or disadvantaged.  And, there'd have to be reference points set (as in the ODS).  How about 220 yards at a swing speed of 100 mph, and a slope on the line of 3 yards per mph swing speed increase or decrease from there.

Now, the engineering challenges in designing a ball to those specs is likely huge.  And, how would the ball manufacturers differentiate their product?  Oh well, who cares what they think anyway.  They'll be good corporate citizens.  

Boy, I can hardly wait to see how this is going to turn out.

[TEPaul]

"This is neither wild speculation on my part nor is it a criticism of the USGA.  It is a fact.  Many of them started the 2003 season in Kapalua with the ProV1x and BOOM, an overnight distance explosion."

Hmmm, yes, I think I remember that Kapalua tournament. Some of the pros such as Parvenik said how much he loved the imagination required to play the course that year. The ground game was certainly in full flower and some of their drives were rolling out 75-100 yards. Did you bother to factor something like that into your 2003 ProVx overnight distance explosion and your charts David?

That tournament was an example of one of the most ideal "maintenance melds" I've seen on tour.  

"Tom, you are wrong about this.  There was a distance explosion in 2003 among big hitters, at least those who switched to the ProV1x.  The facts are irrefutable.  I know this doesnt jibe with your understanding of what you think the USGA told you about the modern ball, but it in fact happened and is not some wild speculation or spoilt fit on my part.  Your failure to come to grips with this and other facts is undermining your ability to fully understand the distance issue."

David:

I don't think so. If I were you I'd tend to consider more carefully what Bryan Izatt has been telling you regarding the potential unreliablity of your assumptions, conclusions and charts. The driving stat numbers are obviously fact but you're obviously not aware of a number of factors that may have contributed to those driving distance stats and data, are you? Were you at Kapalua, for instance? Was there anything about the course, for instance that may've been different from 2002? What if the roll-out on the course was 50 yards more than 2002? Or are you not interested in those potential variables as they relate to driving distance stats of 2002 vs 2003? If you're not interested in factoring in any manner of contributing variables to those driving stats, then why would you expect any of us to rely on your charts and your assumptions and conclusion that this is all the result of the "explosion" of the ProVx?  

Don't you think perhaps a more scientifically controlled test is called for? If you don't then I'd continue to question the reliability of your opinions, as others are on here.  

[TEPaul]

"Wow   The steel shaft driver couldn't handle higher swing speed?  How's that?  It was only recently that graphite shafts could handle high swing speeds.  If you mean the persimmon head caused too much dispersion on off-centre hits at higher speeds, how can you support that?  I played persimmon for many years (yes I remember you told me I'm old) and I don't remember it being wildly erratic compared to today.  And I played with and against some long hitters in thos days who were able to keep the ball in play and be long.  Or, are you speculating that there is an explosive dispersion effect at high speeds with persimmon?"

Bryan:

Definitely keep this line of response up. David Moriarty seems to have a tendency to make these arbitrary remarks that he totally fails to factually support and then a few days later he claims they are irrefutable facts, the questioning of which simply shows we are all WRONG!  

It is sort of amusing to watch but, again, I think I'll take my information from those I feel are far better equiped to produce supportable and reliable data from scientifically controlled test methods.