[DMoriarty]

It has often been repeated that the old Pinnacles, Top Flites, etc. from over a decade ago were just as long as the new balls.   This makes sense to me, generally.  

But at what point along the development timeline did the new type of low spin, soft feel ball catch up distancewise with the old Pinnacles, etc?  

Is the new ball now longer than the old ball?  If so, by how much and at what swing speeds?

Was the old Pinnacle as long as the Strata?  The early Callaways?   The ProV?  The ProV1x?  

Was the old Pinnacle as long as every new distance ball that has yet to be produced?  At ever swing speed?

[John Kavanaugh]

David,

This would make an excellent topic for Bombsquadgolf...

[TEPaul]

David:

I've got a suggestion for you. Instead of just continuously posting these threads that basically sing your same old song so there can be another multi-page series of arguments over and over again about all this technical and historic I&B stuff, why the hell don't you just save yourself (and us too) the time and the effort and call the USGA Tech Center and ask them some of these questions of yours first? You know, the USGA is your golf regulatory body just as much as it is any of the rest of us.

[DMoriarty]

David,

This would make an excellent topic for Bombsquadgolf...

If you really think so, feel free to go to Bombsquadgolf and post it.  

[DMoriarty]

David:

I've got a suggestion for you. Instead of just continuously posting these threads that basically sing your same old song so there can be another multi-page series of arguments over and over again about all this technical and historic I&B stuff, why the hell don't you just save yourself (and us too) the time and the effort and call the USGA Tech Center and ask them some of these questions of yours first? You know, the USGA is your golf regulatory body just as much as it is any of the rest of us.

The USGA has better things to do than answer my questions. . . at least I hope they do.  

Tom, you are the one who repeatedly says that we must fully understand the history of the technological development behind the ball.  You've also repeatedly noted that the old balls were just as long as the new balls.   But the new balls have kept getting longer . . . at high swing speeds the ProV1x is quite a bit longer than the ProV.  

So when you say the old balls are as long and the new balls, to what new balls are you referring?  1996?  2000?  2004?  2006?  

[TEPaul]

"So when you say the old balls are as long and the new balls, to what new balls are you referring?  1996?  2000?  2004?  2006? "

Let me put it this way, again, for you David. There are a number of other I&B factors that've contributed to distance increase other than the golf ball. That's one aspect, and the other is effectively the USGA ODS regarding ball distance conformance has not changed for app 30 years now.

I really am beginning to struggle to understand what it is that's going on with you. This stuff is not exacly rocket science. It's not simple, for sure, but it's not that complex if you just bother to ask questions about those things that concern you of those who obviously know the most about it. I'm afraid those who know the most about it is not you David, it's the USGA's Tech Center. It's a cop-out to say you think they have better things to do than talk to you. They don't seem to mind talking to me. Would you like me to introduce you, or can you understand they are every bit as much your regulatory body as they are mine?  

[DMoriarty]

Tom,  thanks for the response, but unfortunately you failed to answer my question.   To which generation of new balls do you refer when you say the old balls are just as long as the new ones?

[ed_getka]

Tom,
    I would expect to get as much of an enlightening answer from the USGA Tech Center as I would if I called up someone in the Bush administration (or Clinton's or any other president) to ask about some public policy question. All one of those phone calls is going to accomplish is to have someone spout the party line.
     Do you seriously expect me to believe that someone at the USGA Tech Center is going to answer my questions that imply the utter incompetence of the USGA (with regards to the distance issue)?  If so, please tell me who I should try to reach, and I will let you know what I find out.

[Jeff Fortson]

Mr. Paul,

It seems as if the USGA Tech Center has given you the answers from the way you present it, so why don't you spare us all a phone call to the USGA and tell us what they said.  Instead of deflecting David's questions, why not answer them if you know the answers (which you present yourself to know)?


Jeff F.

[Jeff Fortson]

Ed,

I am going to try to call them tomorrow.  I have a feeling you hit this one on the head.  I'm fully prepared to hear a song and dance routine with lots of smoke and mirrors in the lyrics and presentation.

That is assuming they take the time to answer my questions at all.  Not all of us have connections and buddies on the "inside".


Jeff F.

[ed_getka]

Jeff,
   I would love to hear what they have to say. You are in a much better position than I to know what questions to ask and if the answers make any sense.
   The other person I would love to have call them would be Paul Turner.
    Of course, thats assuming they would actually answer questions.
    I hope you are taking good care of the Putter, as its a few short months before you hand it back over.

[TEPaul]

Ed and Jeff:

You're saying if you called the USGA Tech Center and asked them questions they'd treat the questions like the Bush administration treasts questions?  

Are either of you under the impression that if you called up the USGA's Tech Center and asked them what they're going to do about distance they'd tell you?

Why would they do that since they haven't even told the manufacturers yet? If you'd bother to read something like Vernon's report you'd see they don't exactly know what they're going to do yet, although they certainly have made public what it is they're looking at probably with the intention of new I&B rules and regs. That's what they would tell you about what their future I&B policy MAY be. At this point they probably have all the prototype balls they asked the manufacturers for that go 15 and 25 yards less far. They've said publicly their next step is to study all the dynamics of those balls perhaps with the idea of new rules and regs.

When I talk to the Tech Center I ask questions about their understanding about things like golf ball and golf club dynamics and physics and such. The man I sometimes talk to there said long ago he'd be glad to talk about the science of golf balls and golf clubs but he wouldn't talk about future I&B policy because he doesn't know what that'll be anyway.

I ask technical and technologic questions of them simply because I'm trying to explain how off the wall some of the personal "theories" of some on here really are. I asked them if they felt the old low spin Pinnacle traveled about as far as the latest ProV series if hit with today's equipment and the answer was yes.

I asked them a question about ball performance and I believe I got a straight answer.

[ed_getka]

Tom,
   I'm not interested in the policy plans going forward. I am interested in knowing what advances have gotten golf to where it is now, what they might have done about it to curb the distance increases, and what are they doing at this time to explore what the endpoint of all this is from a physics standpoint. I'm more interested basically in knowing if they have a handle on the technology issues and the ability to know how to control it. Obviously the decision to use the science is in the hands of the bigwigs.
   I just don't believe that someone at the Tech Center would answer my questions in a meaningful way. But as I said before if you want to tell me who to call I'll be happy to try the experiment.

[TEPaul]

Ed:

What you seem interested in knowing about distance has been pretty accurately discussed on here, in my opinion. Have you read Vernon's report? If not that gives you a pretty clear idea of what they are concentrating on right now.

I mean they have asked all the manufacturers for prototype balls they can study and test that go 15 and 25 yards less far. You don't think they asked for them just for the heck of it, do you?  

[Jim_Kennedy]

A friend of mine who was on the long drive circuit for awhile was at Hotchkiss about a year and a half ago. We had him hitting balls out in front of the clubhouse. We gave him some of the oldest balls we could dig up out of the barrel in the back room. I'm talking some Blue Dot Maxflis, Tour Editions, Prestige, 384DT Tour 100s, etc.. There were balls with dimple patterns most people under 40 have never seen.
He also hit quite a few PROV1s and Xs that came out of my shag bag.

End result: The ProV's were the longest but quite a few of his shots with several of the other balls were right out there and I would have been happy to have hit any one of them.

Once your club head speed gets up to that of a guy like this, nearly 140 mph, it doesn't matter what you are hitting.

[Jeff Fortson]

Here is the Vernon Report for all of you who keep getting berated over it.

    

Report Of The Equipment Standards Committee To The 2006 USGA Annual Meeting


February 7, 2006

By Jim Vernon, Chairman of the Equipment Standards Committee

I. Introduction

Fred(Ridley) and Walter(Driver) have asked me to provide a more detailed report of the Equipment Standards Committee than is typical at an Annual Meeting.  Let me start with what the Committee is charged with doing.
# Simply stated, the Committee regulates clubs, balls and other equipment to assure compliance with the Rules of Golf.  We regulate not just for the most accomplished golfers, but for all golfers, of all abilities.
# The underlying philosophy is set forth in detail in the Joint Statement of Principles adopted by the USGA and the R&A in 2002.  In short, we are to remain vigilant to ensure that improvements in technology do not diminish the skill necessary to play the game.

To carry out that mandate, the USGA is fortunate to have a group of incredibly talented, intelligent, and inquisitive scientists who devote themselves to the task.  Heading that group is Senior Technical Director Dick Rugge, who oversees a staff of 18. Dick has established himself as a person of credibility and candor, and that has served the USGA well in its relations with the manufacturers.

II. Accomplishments In 2005

Much of the time and effort of the Test Center staff in 2005 was focused on three areas:  1) Moment of inertia; 2) spin generation; and 3) the ball.  I will get to each of those in a minute, but I do not want to leave anyone with the impression that we are not involved in other areas.
# For example, we are investigating whether to liberalize the rules against adjustability of clubs so that it would be easier for golfers everywhere to take advantage of some of the improvements in clubs.
# We have continued to measure the spring effect of iron club heads to monitor developments by the manufacturers and to assure that any increases in spring effect do not affect the way the game is played.
# We have continued development of a turf impact tester for use on fairways and greens—to better understand the effects of course setup on player performance.  We hope to refine the tester this year and to use it to generate more data at our championship sites this year.
# We measured swing speed and launch conditions of all Tour pros at the 2005 U.S. Open in order to get a better understanding of how the game is being played by the best players.

Now let me return to those three areas where we focused so much of our time and effort in 2005.

A.  Moment Of Inertia (MOI)
# In August, we issued a notice of a proposal to impose a limit on the Moment of Inertia (MOI) of driver club heads and to adopt a test procedure to measure MOI.  We received extensive and detailed comments from manufacturers, which have been most helpful. We are completing our analysis of those comments and are considering whether to adopt the proposed limit and test procedure.  That decision should be finalized and announced within the next few weeks.

B. Spin Generation
# We have spent considerable time researching how spin is generated by a clubface.  It has been a most revealing project and has greatly increased our knowledge of how different features of the clubface, and the construction of the ball itself, are responsible for imparting spin to the ball.  We hope to finish the project later this year, and we will then determine whether new rules would be desirable.

Before I go any further, let me take this opportunity to thank the manufacturers for their efforts to cooperate with the USGA in carrying out our equipment related responsibilties. While we do not always agree with each other, we are able to have frank and candid exchanges of information and ideas. That is good for everyone involved.

I also want to acknowledge the support shown by Tim Finchem and the PGA Tour.  They repeatedly have acknowledged that the USGA and the R&A are the appropriate rule-making bodies for regulating golf equipment.  They have publicly supported our research efforts, particularly our ball project—and have recognized that it is only through that research that we can define what options are available to regulate club and ball performance and can make educated assessments of the effects of those options. And they have given us full access to the data generated by their new ShotLink System for every shot at every tour event. As a result, we have a far clearer picture of how the game is being played by the best players.  Actual data has replaced speculation and opinion because of ShotLink.

continued below...

[Jeff Fortson]

continued...

# C. The Ball

Central to our investigations is our ball project.  In 2002, the USGA committed the funds necessary to conduct advanced research on all aspects of the golf ball and its performance characteristics, including:

# Size
# Weight
# Materials
# Construction
# Dimple design
# Impact dynamics
# Aerodynamics
# Moment of inertia


The ultimate goal is to determine how performance might best be regulated if under the Statement of Principles it is determined to be necessary. In the course of this project, we have developed what we believe to be modeling techniques that lead the manufacturers. In some ways we think we have an even better understanding of ball performance characteristics than some of the manufacturers.

Last April, we asked the ball manufacturers to participate in the project by developing and submitting to us reduced distance golf balls that would comply with an ODS of either 15 yards or 25 yards shorter than the current standard. All the major manufacturers agreed to participate.  Currently, we have received two sets of such balls.  We expect to receive at least seven more sets of balls within the next two months. We understand that creating new balls with playing characteristics that will be acceptable to today’s golfers takes time and we appreciate the thorough job ball manufacturers are doing in support of our research.

We will test all these balls in the Test Center.  Just as importantly, we will then evaluate the balls with real golfers of many different skill levels, from elite players to those with much slower swing speeds.  We want to determine the effects that such balls would have on how the game is played by golfers of all different skill levels.

III. Distance And The de-skilling Of The Game

Now let me address the issue that continues to generate more discussion than any other topic regarding technology and the game of golf—the distance elite players are hitting the golf ball. What we are learning from our many research activities is that the issue of distance is even more complex than we originally appreciated. Indeed, while distance certainly remains an issue, it is part of a broader change in the way the game is being played, what some are describing as the “de-skilling” of the game at the elite level.  While discussion of this controversial topic has focused on the golf ball, it actually involves the interaction of all the other factors that are involved in hitting the ball:

# Higher spring effect in drivers;
# Bigger club heads with bigger sweet spots, which impart less spin to the ball -- more forgiving clubs that allow accomplished players to swing harder and that reduce the distance penalty for hitting a shot off center;
# Higher swing speeds due primarily to increased athleticism, but also to longer, lighter clubs;
# Development of balls with lower spin rates and improved aerodynamic properties;
# Development of groove configurations and surface treatments of iron clubfaces that allow accomplished players to impart spin to the ball even out of the rough; and
# Use of advanced launch monitors to match clubs, shafts and balls to an individual player’s swing.

We know that the way the way the game is being played by accomplished players has changed dramatically in recent years. All the research I have described has given us a much better idea what has made that change possible. It is not just that driving distances have increased among elite players. What I am suggesting is that we need to re-frame the discussion of how the game is being changed. Consider these factors:

# Average driving distance on the PGA Tour continues to increase, but the increases have leveled off the last two years — 1.0 yard in 2004 and 1.6 yards in 2005.
# At the same time, there has been a clear increase in the number of Tour pros who average more than 300 yards.
# We know from the ShotLink data provided by the PGA Tour that driving accuracy has ceased to be a factor in predicting success on the PGA Tour.
# We know from other data that Tour pros are swinging their drivers faster and faster, and that the larger, higher MOI drivers allow them to hit the ball farther even when they strike the ball well off the center of the clubface.
# We know that the groove configurations and surface treatments on modern irons, when accomplished players hit their drives into the rough, they can generate more spin out of the rough, allowing them to hit more greens when they have missed the fairway.
# The same spin generation features of today’s iron clubfaces increase accomplished players’ probability of recovering when they miss the green.


There are a lot of pieces to the puzzle. Our task this year is to continue to evaluate all these factors and to determine whether new regulations would be appropriate to require the elite players in particular to regain some of the skills that were more important in the past. The task is complicated, or course, by what I said at the beginning of my remarks -- we regulate equipment for all golfers of all skill levels, not just PGA Tour pros.

We also are mindful of something else in the Statement of Principles: that increased distance has other negative ramifications that we seek to avoid -- the lengthening and toughening of courses in response to increases in distance is costly and in many cases impossible.  It also has negative effects on environmental and ecological issues, on the costs of maintaining courses and on the pace of play as well.

IV. Conclusion

The Equipment Standards Committee has set an aggressive agenda for 2006, and we believe it accurately reflects the state of the industry and the game. Underlying all our efforts will be the philosophy set forth in the Statement of Principles: we will remain vigilant to assure that technology does not diminish the skill necessary to play the game.

[Jeff Fortson]

I read this in mid-February and it was encouraging at best.  It is nice to see the USGA acknowledge the issue and I do think they will act.  The USGA has to know that things are getting dangerously close to being out of hand re: distance.

However, if this report is supposed to answer my technical questions then I need to inquire further.  This statement reports what is basically already commonly known by those that follow the subject.  I didn't learn much from it if anything at all, other than the USGA is finally going public with their concerns.

My question is.....

Where was this statement three or four years ago?


Jeff F.


P.S.: For me, Pinnacles and Top Flites from 1988 go no where near ProV1's today.  Not even close.  Not even with the modern driver.

[George Pazin]

Thanks for posting that, Jeff.

Am I the only one that thinks they should be, and should have been, producing studies like this every year? What the heck does a scientist/technician do with his time, if not to study and monitor this sort of thing continuously? Do they receive that many prospective inventions submitted for approval that they don't constantly monitor this?

One interesting side effect of the Ball Wars is that even the true distance balls are much better than the old ones, at least in my experience. I've always played them, primarily because they're so inexpensive and I have always struggled to not lose balls, and today's Top Flites, Pinnacles, whatever, feel much better to me than the ones I started with 10 years ago. The old ones literally felt like rocks, the new ones feel similar to expensive balls, to me anyway.

I wonder how much it would be to rent an Iron Byron for a day or two and do some independent testing....

[Bryan Izatt]

It has often been repeated that the old Pinnacles, Top Flites, etc. from over a decade ago were just as long as the new balls.   This makes sense to me, generally.  

But at what point along the development timeline did the new type of low spin, soft feel ball catch up distancewise with the old Pinnacles, etc?  

Probably around 1996 with the multi-layer Strata.  But those babies had covers that shredded.  It was probably the Pro V1  around 2001 that legitemized the multi-layer ball that spun low off the driver and high enough off the wedges.  And, had covers that lasted forever. And that had distance comparable to the Pinnacles.

Is the new ball now longer than the old ball?  If so, by how much and at what swing speeds?

Who knows?  I don't suppose that anybody - even the USGA - has done a scientific, statistically valid, longitudinal study of all balls to monitor this.  Maybe you should ask this question of Titleist, since they made the old Pinnacle and the new ProV's.

I saw an article in one of the UK magazines lately where they had a single pro hit balls with driver and wedge that they monitored with phased array radar for distance and spin.  Not very scientific and not statistically valid of course.  But, irc, there was maybe a 10 yard difference in distance between different models of current balls off the driver.  Titleist apparently declined to participate in the test.  Do you suppose that their balls may not have come out any longer than the rest?  

Was the old Pinnacle as long as the Strata?  The early Callaways?   The ProV?  The ProV1x?

Probably.  The point of the Strata was that you could spin it with a wedge but still get the distance of a rock.  I've played all these balls through the transition, and my anecdotal feeling is that the old Pinnacle was just as long.  But, I didn't play it a lot at that time because I could not spin it sufficiently around the green  

Was the old Pinnacle as long as every new distance ball that has yet to be produced?  At ever swing speed?

Who knows?  My crystal ball is cloudy today.  Seems likely that some improvement in ball technology will continue to happen, sans regulation.

[Bryan Izatt]

I had read the Vernon paper before, and found it interesting again in re-reading it.  I think one point to be drawn from it is that the question of distance is a complex one affected by many variables including the ball.

 

# C. The Ball

Central to our investigations is our ball project.  In 2002, the USGA committed the funds necessary to conduct advanced research on all aspects of the golf ball and its performance characteristics, including:

# Size
# Weight
# Materials
# Construction
# Dimple design
# Impact dynamics
# Aerodynamics
# Moment of inertia

Many here want for there to be a simple dial that can be turned to increase spin and reduce distance.  With the 7 factors mentioned above, it is likely a complex physics exercise involving those 7 factors to achieve a reliable distance reduction.

A second point is that there are a myriad of other factors involved in distance that need to be considered.

While discussion of this controversial topic has focused on the golf ball, it actually involves the interaction of all the other factors that are involved in hitting the ball:

# Higher spring effect in drivers;
# Bigger club heads with bigger sweet spots, which impart less spin to the ball -- more forgiving clubs that allow accomplished players to swing harder and that reduce the distance penalty for hitting a shot off center;
# Higher swing speeds due primarily to increased athleticism, but also to longer, lighter clubs;
# Development of balls with lower spin rates and improved aerodynamic properties;
# Development of groove configurations and surface treatments of iron clubfaces that allow accomplished players to impart spin to the ball even out of the rough; and
# Use of advanced launch monitors to match clubs, shafts and balls to an individual player’s swing.

Figuring all those out is likely complex too.  Perhaps that's why it's taking the USGA so long to come to grips with the issue.  Not to mention possible lawsuits.

In the technology debates around here, it would be nice if there was some recognition that no one has all the answers to how all these factors play into the distance issue.  At least the USGA seems to be on a path to logically addressing it in an empirical way.  

Now, if we could stop classic courses from doing silly things to their courses while this sorts out, we'd all be happy    Maybe.

[Garland Bayley]

...call the USGA Tech Center and ask them some of these questions of yours first? You know, the USGA is your golf regulatory body just as much as it is any of the rest of us.

I sent them a question along this line 14 days ago by email. I got an automated response that I would get an answer in 10 to 15 days .
Since I am no Tom Paul, I doubt I am going to get the promised answer.

[Tiger_Bernhardt]

TE equals Pat Mucci. Hmmm Could it be they are the same mind in two different bodies. It seems TE retorical questions here mirror Pats. Are they one and the same?

[TEPaul]

"My question is.....
Where was this statement three or four years ago?"

Jeff Fortson:

I thought you told me you were aware of the USGA's $10 million study of the golf ball and all it various dynamics they could discover from that study. The USGA's study was launched in 2002-2003. Unless my math is no good it looks like that put it about 3 or 4 years ago. Much of Vernon's report at the annual Meeting of the USGA last month was the result of that $10 million study. Does that answer your question about where Vernon's statement was three or four years ago?

[TEPaul]

David Moriarty said:

"It has often been repeated that the old Pinnacles, Top Flites, etc. from over a decade ago were just as long as the new balls.  This makes sense to me, generally.  
But at what point along the development timeline did the new type of low spin, soft feel ball catch up distancewise with the old Pinnacles, etc?  
Is the new ball now longer than the old ball?  If so, by how much and at what swing speeds?
Was the old Pinnacle as long as the Strata?  The early Callaways?  The ProV?  The ProV1x?"

David:

From that post of yours, it occurs to me, as it has in the past, that perhaps you don't really understand what the USGA's ODS has been and still is.

I'm just wondering, once again, why you'd ask if the ProV is longer than the old Pinnacle;

"Is the new ball now longer than the old ball?  If so, by how much and at what swing speeds?"

The ODS has really not changed in the last 30 years although a few years ago they raised the mph factor from 109mph to I think 120mph. This did not mean the USGA was allowing golf balls to get longer under the ODS it only means they moved their mph "pass/fail" factor up to obviously reflect the reality of the big hitters' swing speeds.  

When the mph "pass/fail" line was at 109mph that did not mean the USGA didn't think any player swung faster than 109mph. And now that the mph "pass/fail" line is at 120mph it does not mean that the USGA doesn't think any player swings faster than 120mph.

Let's assume that old Pinnacle, the old distance ball, was right up at the ODS limitation distance-wise which they say it was. If that was so, and the ODS has not increased allowable distance at the ODS limitation why are you asking if the ProV is longer than the old Pinnacle or at what swing speed?

The ODS mph factor is nothing more than a "pass/fail" line and if the old Pinnacle was at the ODS limitation why do you think a ProV, for instance, can be longer than the Pinnacle without being deemed "non-conforming" by the USGA?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()