Ohio Golf Assoc: First to try "Tournament Ball"

[Bill_McBride]

Can anyone estimate what the Augusta National Golf Club could have saved in construction costs over the past decade by instituting a 'tournament ball' for their unique event?

[Garland Bayley]

Better yet, could those powerful people at ANGC have sued the USGA for lack of regulation, so that they would not have had to spend the money in the first place.

Why is it that only the clubmakers can use the law suit option?

[wsmorrison]

"Can anyone estimate what the Augusta National Golf Club could have saved in construction costs over the past decade by instituting a 'tournament ball' for their unique event?"

Yeah, about 1 day's worth of income for the average member  

[A.G._Crockett]

I am still very curious as to what ball they might find for this, since the indication is that it is a ball already on the market and conforming.  

Does anyone have any idea what ball(s) they might have in mind?  I have a hard time accepting that the Mojo-Noodle-Loco type ball doesn't go just as far at 120 mph swing speeds as a ProV.

[Ted Kramer]

I am still very curious as to what ball they might find for this, since the indication is that it is a ball already on the market and conforming.  

Does anyone have any idea what ball(s) they might have in mind?  I have a hard time accepting that the Mojo-Noodle-Loco type ball doesn't go just as far at 120 mph swing speeds as a ProV.

My guess is that it will be something along the lines of the original Precept Lady. I'm pretty sure that is was the Lady that started us down this road . . .

-Ted

[A.G._Crockett]

If it was the Lady or some such, that would be interesting in terms of who it rewards.  I don't think the impact on length would be very dramatic at all, but it would have a huge impact on the manageability of various shots around the green.  I guess the idea would be to force the players to play to more advantageous distances for full shots?  But it sure would seem to eliminate a skill set that is awfully hard to acquire and awfully fun to watch (read Tiger Woods here...)

[Doug Siebert]

Garland/Bryan:

I did the True Temper ShaftLab a few years ago, the data you get back is pretty interesting.  I wouldn't agree with Bryan that the leads and lag are "quite small in absolute sense".  When I did the driver test, I had a 7.2" maximum deflection in the shaft, I wouldn't call that "quite small"!

It isn't a complete picture, of course.  It said I should be swinging an S400 iron and X200 wood (if I was buying Dynamic Gold) and since I have S500 irons since 1989 and I used to swing an X100 driver tipped an inch back in the steel shaft days I guess I was pretty much on the mark with my "self fit" of shaft flex.  Since launch angle takes on much greater importance these days there is still a lot it won't tell you, and True Temper doesn't make any claims that it does.  They only claim it will help fit you for the correct shaft flex, and if your optimal flex doesn't also optimize toe droop, you can take that into account and get the uprightness of your clubs adjusted from their static fit to take that into account.

Some people argue that shaft flex doesn't matter -- and that's true, if you are a "swinger" rather than a "hitter".  If I swing a senior flex shaft I'll hit a high hook or monster push right every time, but a guy with a smooth even acceleration could hit anything from a ladies shaft to a long drive champion's XXXX shaft and produce good results.

The one thing I learned from looking at the picture of my swing (I still have the sheets, I can scan them in if anyone is curious to see what it produces) is that I and everyone else on the planet has their maximum acceleration before they reach the ball, regardless of all the "accelerate through the ball" instruction you hear.  They had Shaft Lab images from a number of pros up on the wall where I was tested, and every one of them had a drop off in acceleration before impact.

I do think that the data it produces is useful enough that if you wanted to work on your swing being able to regularly get tested on this equipment to check your progress or even experiment with different swings would be at least as helpful if not more helpful than looking at videos.

[Bryan Izatt]

Garland/Bryan:

I did the True Temper ShaftLab a few years ago, the data you get back is pretty interesting.  I wouldn't agree with Bryan that the leads and lag are "quite small in absolute sense".  When I did the driver test, I had a 7.2" maximum deflection in the shaft, I wouldn't call that "quite small"!

Doug, you're right.  When I wrote that I was looking particularly at the lead and the droop, both of which were less than an inch.  I was also looking at my son's chart (a smoooth swinger), so the maximum deflection wasn't too great either.  In looking at my chart the maximum deflection was more than 5 inches, so not insignificant.  The droop and lead were still small.  I assume your lead and droop were also under an inch, unless you're an aggresive late-releasing animal.


A.G.

I am still very curious as to what ball they might find for this, since the indication is that it is a ball already on the market and conforming.

Does anyone have any idea what ball(s) they might have in mind?  I have a hard time accepting that the Mojo-Noodle-Loco type ball doesn't go just as far at 120 mph swing speeds as a ProV.

The article says that: "the tournament ball 'is not a short ball, but rather a uniform ball,'".  It also says "The guy who swings 120 will still hit it farther than most of the other players, but not quite so far."  This suggests that the ball is one that is higher spinning off the driver.  The Hogan Apex Tour ball comes to mind.    I wouldn't count on there being a huge reduction of distance for the 120 mph hitters.  Maybe 5 yards, but certainly not 25 yards.

[Doug Siebert]

Bryan,

I dug up my ShaftLab output.  I was wrong, my deflection was 6.2 not 7.2".  My lead and droop were both a little over an inch, but in contrast to being an "aggressive late-releasing animal" my maximum deflection was reached just before halfway through my downswing, indicating my release starts way too early.

I remember the guy doing the test being quite surprised at how much clubhead speed I had despite releasing so early -- he asked me to repeat the swing because he thought that max deflection location had to be a mistake, though I maintained almost that max deflection until a lot closer to impact.  Be interesting to see some high speed photos of my swing sometime and see if I can figure out how to concentrate the power in my release instead of spreading it out so much...

[TEPaul]

I put in a call to the Tech Center about the OGA situation and frankly I admire them for not wanting to get into answering anything to do with it since they have zero idea what the ball selection is or is all about.

One interesting general bit of information did seem to come out of our 15 or so minute discussion which probably sheds light on the other thread on here that's mainly discussing the ProVx ball. And that is how many variables there are that go into distance production from various players.

It seems to me Bryan Izatt hit on some of them pretty well in his discussion with David Moriarty and his statistical analysis of Tour players switching to the ProVx from some other ball such as the ProV. Why would those distance stats be so varied player to player?

Obviously because there are so many variable that can be and are manipulated today involving different balls, different clubs and club specs and different swings. The whole modern idea of computer club and ball fitting (optimization or whatever you want to call it) to any golfer's swing, equipment and ball has changed everything compared to the old days.

Some players simply gain distance with the same swing speed when they get maximally "Optimized" in this club and ball and swing fitting process.

In that vein Tech Center said if OGA expects that some designated ball will dial back distance production from all players who swing over 105 or 110 or 115 or 120 or 125 etc they are probably wrong about that. That selected ball, whatever it is, could negatively effect some player who swings at 120 if his swing and club is not ideally suited for that designated ball while it could postively effect some player with a swing speed of 120 if his club and swing is ideal for that designated ball compared to whatever ball he had been using, even including a ProVx.

Also there is another scary thought indeed to think about that was mentioned by Tech Center. Take this guy J.B. Holmes who is so long, for instance. Is he getting all the distance he could out of total synergy or optimization of any legal club and ball with his particular swing? Apparently not. And apparently because he doesn't want to use some optimal distance combination for various reasons.

In other words his club face is not near max legal COR and the golf ball he uses is apparently higher spinning than one he could use for even more carry distance. Apparently the same is true of Tiger Woods as any of us could see him explain the other day. He's decided to give up distance for a higher spinning ball.

To me all this adds up to the fact that David Moriarty's assumptions and conclusions about the ProVx alone is very likely inaccurate and Bryan Izatt's reasons as to why David Moriarty's assumptions and conclusion are suspect is generally correct, and matter of fact seemingly pretty much in-line with the explanations of the USGA's Tech Center. There are a ton of variables that go into distance production and David Moriarty's fixation on the ProVx for high mph swing speeds is just a single potential variable, nothing more.

Another fact confirmed by Tech Center is allowable ODS distance has not changed in about 30 years. In other words the modern ProVx would've been conforming when ODS was created in 1976.