Facts and Distance

[DMoriarty]

[David said:]
In the article, the USGA charts the distance each ball travels when hit by a driver through a range of swing speeds.   But when driving the golf ball, players are pretty much locked into their maximum effective swing speed, at least at given time--  No one can simply decide to just swing faster than they are capable of swinging!     I agree that each individual has a maximum effective swing speed, but I'm not sure I understand how this point relates to your general hypothesis?  

Brian, my point is that when examining who the technology benefits, we must compare the distance characteristics of different balls at different swing speeds.   A slow swinger doesnt benefit from the ProV1x if the ball he is using is as long (or longer) than the ProV1x at that particular golfer's swing speed.

[David said:]  So while the USGA draws conclusions based on looking how a single ball performs over a series of swing speeds,  I am taking it a step further--  how does each ball relatively benefit different golfers with different swing speeds?    I don't understand this point.  Are you saying that a given swing speed produces different results depending on the player?  To me any player who swings at the speeds tested by the USGA will achieve the same results with the same ball, the same club, and the same launch conditions.

No, I am simply saying that if we wish to understand how different players benefit differently from technology, we need to compare balls over a large range of swing speeds.

[David said:] Let me put it this way.  Say we have a fast swing golfer (say 130 mph) and a slow swing golfer (say 70 mph) who both switch to the ProV1x from the ProV1 (or even from some low-priced "distance" ball.)    Can we just pick one option, for discussion purposes.  Let's say changing from the ProV1 to the ProV1x.  I think that the 130 mph golfer will benefit much more from the switch than the 70 mph golfer.    Could  you quantify a range of what you think "much more" is.  5 yards? 10? 15?    

Sure, we can stick to the ProV1 if you like, but the point is much more general that that.   My guess is that comparing the ProV1x with a senior/ladies ball like the old Lady Precept would produce more telling results.  No, I cannot quantify the amount gained because I don’t have a test facility.  Certainly not one which would meet your scrutiny.

In looking at your chart based on hypothetical balls, if we picked an 85 mph swing speed (a slow weekend warrior speed), that player would loose 10 yards going from hypothetically the V1 to the V1x, whereas a 125 mph swinger (near the top end of the Tour range) would gain about 6 yards.  In the real world, of course, the slow speed swinger wouldn't make the change and lose the 10 yards.  So the high speed swinger gains maybe 6 yards, and probably less since the curves flatten out marginally according to the USGA paper.  My point is that this doesn't seem like a disproprtionately large benefit.
 

First, “slow weekend warrior" swing speed is far less than 85 mph, and far less than the 90 mph suggested by the USGA.  Others might know more specifically, but my blind guess is that the vast majority of golfers have a swing speed slower than 85 mph.  

Second,(remembering that these numbers are purely for explanatory purposes only) I do think that a 5-6 yard gain is disproportionate when compared to no gain at all.   Just how big a net gain must their be before you would term such a net gain to be disproportionate?  

My second point is that the 5 balls the USGA tested (supposedly tour balls) do not exhibit this crossing of slopes that you have hypothesized.

Actually balls “A”(light blue) and “C” (green) do appear to cross on the first distance chart.  Nonetheless, I get your point.  Remember that my chart is merely explanatory; a visual tool to help you and others understand that the USGA’s article does not answer the question of whether golfers with fast swings have disproportionally benefited from technology.  That being said, keep in mind these following limitations of the USGA’s test:

First, the balls were chosen based on their wide use on Tour.  My whole point is that we cannot assume balls used by fast swingers (like Tour players) benefit everyone just because they benefit those on Tour.     The vast majority of us do not swing nearly as fast as even the shorter Tour players.  Had they included some a wider range of balls, we might well see the lines crossing.  

Second, the range of swing speeds is also much too narrow to say anything dispositive about how technology has benefited long hitters vs. short hitters.   The article mentions that the 90 mph swing speed represents Amateur golfers!.  Some amateurs sure, but most thrilled to have a swing speed of 90 mph.  Also I’d like to have seen the numbers at 130.  The lines might well have crossed had they carried the charts out further in either direction.

Third, unless I have repeatedly missed them, the USGA inexplicably fails to provide us with the actual distance numbers.  I’d like to see exactly how close a few of these lines come to meeting at various speeds, and how far apart they actually get at other speeds.   For example it looks like the green line and the blue line separate by almost 10 yards with a 20 mph increase.

I believe that one of these balls is the V1x, and another is the V1.  They don't cross as per your hypothetical chart with hypothetical balls.  Are you hypothesizing that the Tour Balata had a curve that would cross somewhere in the spectrum of speeds and was substantially flatter than these 5 balls.  That is probably an unanswerable question.

Do you have any evidence that one is the ProV1 and the other the ProV1x?   If I had to guess, I’d guess that “C” (green) is the ProV1, and that ProV1x is “E” (blue.)  Note that at around 100 mph the these two lines are virtually overlapping, but that at the higher swing speeds the blue and the green substantially separate themselves, with “E” (blue) providing a definite distance advantage over “C” (green) to the faster swinger, but not to the 100 mph swinger.   Or maybe the ProV1 is light blue.  I don’t know.

I did not mean to imply anything about the old Balata.  My guess is that there are plenty of balls out there still today that would cross these lines and be flatter.

[Bryan Izatt]

David,

Since I see a 10 yard difference between two current tour balls tested under the same conditions, I guess I would think a disproportionate gain would be something greater than that.  If you think 5-6 yards is disproportionate that's fine.  I was just trying to establish the meaning of the word in your terms.

As to swing speeds, I think you are seriously under-estimating average swing speeds.  Amongst other things, I make clubs for people, and have used Beltronic swing speed monitors to measure swing speed.  At my course last fall, I measured half a dozen people, between mid 50's and late 60's in age.  Even the shortest, oldest of them was above 90 mph.  At 85 mph you're only getting 200 yards off the tee.  Most people I've seen play get at least 200 yards.

 

Do you have any evidence that one is the ProV1 and the other the ProV1x?  If I had to guess, I’d guess that “C” (green) is the ProV1, and that ProV1x is “E” (blue.)  Note that at around 100 mph the these two lines are virtually overlapping, but that at the higher swing speeds the blue and the green substantially separate themselves, with “E” (blue) providing a definite distance advantage over “C” (green) to the faster swinger, but not to the 100 mph swinger.  Or maybe the ProV1 is light blue.  I don’t know.

I did not mean to imply anything about the old Balata.  My guess is that there are plenty of balls out there still today that would cross these lines and be flatter.

No, no evidence.  I'd guess that the ProV1x is the E ball just based on spin rate.

My guess is that there aren't a lot of balls out there today that would cross these lines and be flatter.  On that I guess we'll disagree.

[George Pazin]

One fact that I personally find interesting is that most women pros seem to play the prov1 or prov1x. They clearly don't have the swing speed to "benefit" - under the mythical notion - but they still play it, so it must be a good ball for everyone.

This is a tough topic for me. I can empathize the position of Dave M and Garland Bayley - really, I agree with the motivation behind it - yet, the scientific facts appear to me to be more on the side of the USGA. Really, what the prov1 and prov1x seemed to do was eradicate the benefit the lesser golfers apparently had, using old rocks. Lesser golfers weren't achieving spin rates necessary to use the old balata balls effectively, anyway, so it's frustating that better golfer got the length benefits of the new ball.

The technician in me says that the new ball is more "fair". The golf lover in me says it goes too far. I'm not sure what the answer is, but I would like to see some real world testing of a shorter ball before I made a final decision. I'd be hard pressed to not believe that a ball that flew 10-15% less wouldn't be better for the game.

The GCAer in me thinks the Tom Paul/Dave M feud is mostly semantics and downright silly.

 

[Brent Hutto]

George,

From my limited experimentation when the ProV1x first came out, it's not all about clubhead speed. It's about compressing the ball. With my very anemic 88mph driver swing (at best) the ProV1x could fly about like a ProV1 when well struck. But if I made my typical oblique-contact block-fade swing with an iron the ProV1x would go about 100 yards and then fall out of the sky like a dead quail. The girls on the LPGA Tour may not have a whole lot more driver clubhead speed than I do but they make a square-clubface descending blow on the ball and get it to compress, which is what I concluded the ProV1x requires (not that I'd ever buy more than that one sleeve of them or use them in a real round anyway).

The technician in me says that the new ball is more "fair". The golf lover in me says it goes too far. I'm not sure what the answer is, but I would like to see some real world testing of a shorter ball before I made a final decision. I'd be hard pressed to not believe that a ball that flew 10-15% less wouldn't be better for the game.

I don't deal in "fair" when it comes to golf. If a ball conforms to the Rules it's fair enough to me. But the golf-course lover in me agrees with your main point. Hard to see how the world would be worse off if a 6,400-yard course could still serve amateur golfers well and a 7,000-yard Par 72 course could still be a valid venue for a major championship. A century of experience shows that golf played on that scale is fun and challenging for a huge range of golfers.

Even if it weren't for the expense I have a nagging sense that something is lost when the game is played over greater than visual range, more akin modern stand-off missile warfare than a WW-II dogfight.

[TEPaul]

GeorgeP;

The 'fued' between me and David Moriarty is definitely not just semantics---we have a significant difference of opinion on this subject. I'm most certainly more inclined to accept as more valid the I&B test derived data from the USGA than I am David Moriarty's 'hypotheticals'  

You said;

"-yet, the scientific facts appear to me to be more on the side of the USGA. Really, what the prov1 and prov1x seemed to do was eradicate the benefit the lesser golfers apparently had, using old rocks."

Your second sentence in that remark pretty much captures the essence of this entire subject. For some reason David Moriarty won't accept that or just doesn't understand it. For some reason he keeps claiming when two entirely different types of balls were used by different levels of golfers that one type of ball must have been 'inferior'. Obviously for decades all the golfers who used those two different types didn't think what they were using was INFERIOR. If they did think that then why the hell did they use it?  

You said;

"The technician in me says that the new ball is more "fair"."

It would most certainly seem that now that apparently all levels of golfers are basically using the same type of golf ball (the lower spinning type) that things are now more "fair".

Apparently David Moriarty doesn't think all golfers should be allowed to use the same type of golf ball since in his mind doing so is unfair to less good golfers.

To say the least, his line of reasoning is specious at best. And now I really see no reason why any of us would want to continue to discuss David Moriarty's distance "hypotheticals" when we have real world test data on the subject from the USGA Tech Center.

[DMoriarty]

Since I see a 10 yard difference between two current tour balls tested under the same conditions, I guess I would think a disproportionate gain would be something greater than that.  If you think 5-6 yards is disproportionate that's fine.  I was just trying to establish the meaning of the word in your terms.

Again Bryan I remind you that the the numbers in my hypo are rather meaningless. Looking at the USGA chart we can see that at least two of the lines seperate by at around 10 yards in around 20 mph increased swing speed(100 to 120.)  Surely we can agree that a 10 yard difference between balls is significant, can we not?

As to swing speeds, I think you are seriously under-estimating average swing speeds.  Amongst other things, I make clubs for people, and have used Beltronic swing speed monitors to measure swing speed.  At my course last fall, I measured half a dozen people, between mid 50's and late 60's in age.  Even the shortest, oldest of them was above 90 mph.  At 85 mph you're only getting 200 yards off the tee.  Most people I've seen play get at least 200 yards.

I may be underestimating average swing speeds, but I don't think I am too far off.    I havent found a definite answer but various sources online put the average for males at between 80 and 85 mph.   I am not sure but I think this may exclude senior males.   Someone here must  have reliable numbers for this.   Hasnt someone on here claimed on multiple occassions that most players drive the ball well less than 200 yards, on average?  
 
Even if we assume that the average male swing speed is 85 mph then a chart starting at 90 mph does not go nearly low enough to show anything meaningful about how balls perform across a true spectrum of golfers.  

My guess is that there aren't a lot of balls out there today that would cross these lines and be flatter.  On that I guess we'll disagree.

 

I am curious, on what basis do you make this guess?   Do you really believe that a golfer with swing speed of, say, 75 or 80 mph will get just as much distance from a ProV1x as from a ball geared toward slower swings, like the Lady Precept, or whatever is this year's equivalent?  Do you really believe that a Pro with a swing speed of 130+ would hit a ball like the Lady Precept close to as far as he hits a ProV1x?    
_______________________________________

Brent Hutto said:  

From my limited experimentation when the ProV1x first came out, it's not all about clubhead speed. It's about compressing the ball. With my very anemic 88mph driver swing (at best) the ProV1x could fly about like a ProV1 when well struck. But if I made my typical oblique-contact block-fade swing with an iron the ProV1x would go about 100 yards and then fall out of the sky like a dead quail.

Brent,  I find your comments about the importance of compression very interesting although I not sure I quite understand what you are saying.   Perhaps you could humor me . . .

Isn't the ball's compression really determined by the  magnitude of the vector force applied by the swing, as well as the COR of the collision?  

Is it reasonable to think of the problem of a "oblique-contact block-fade swing" [I know it well] in terms of forces working in slightly different directions, where a such a swing results in a lower ball velocity?   Similarly, is it reasonable to think of off-center hits as effectively diminishing the COR of the collision, resulting again in less ball velocity?   And if we could quantify all the inefficiencies created by crooked and off-center contact, could we work backwards and come up with some sort of an effective swing speed equivalent?    

Would it be fair to say, for example, that one of my typical 88 mph, off-center, oblique-contact block-fade swing is equivalent to a straight and on-center lower speed swing (excluding direction from consideration, of course.)  In other words, can a crooked, off-center swing of 90 mph produce the same distance result as a straight, on-center swing of 70 mph?

I hope these questions aren't too confusing . . .

_________________________________________________
George Pazin said:

One fact that I personally find interesting is that most women pros seem to play the prov1 or prov1x. They clearly don't have the swing speed to "benefit" - under the mythical notion - but they still play it, so it must be a good ball for everyone.

I would think that professional women have high enough swing speeds to hit the Pro V1.  They hit it further than most the men I know who hit that ball, including me.   As for the ProV1x, are their really many women who play it?   This surprises me.   As an aside, there are a number of men out there who seemed to have benefited little from switching to the ProV1x, but they still hit it.  Perhaps ego plays a role?

This is a tough topic for me. I can empathize the position of Dave M and Garland Bayley - really, I agree with the motivation behind it - yet, the scientific facts appear to me to be more on the side of the USGA.

George, specifically, what "scientific facts"  appear to be on the side of the USGA?  It seems to me that by focusing on the shape of the curves, they really missed the larger issues, but maybe I am wrong.  Just what exactly is it that you think they have proven with their paper?  

[TEPaul]

Bob Crosby said yesterday;

"I mean, whether or not increases in distance are linear over different swing speeds, is there any serious doubt that tournament fields are hitting it much farther than they did 10 years ago, and much, much farther than they did 20 years ago, etc. and that we have reached a crisis point with historic golf courses?
Is that issue in doubt? I ask my question only because, reading between the USGA lines, they seem to imply it is in doubt; that everything is just fine and under control and we shouldn't worry.
Me, I worry. A lot."

Bob:

No, the issue that the ball goes quite a lot further for elite and powerful players today compared to that time (around and before 1995) when most all of them used a high spin golf ball is not in doubt. The USGA Tech Center is not and has not denied that (at least not in a statistical distance sense).

They have also explained (at least to me they have) why this happened. They have also admitted whenever asked that distance on Tour has increased app 30 yards (see their timeframe and parameters). So no, I don't see that they're implying that those distance stratistic are in doubt.

On the other hand, they have also said (and written) that they reserve the right to stop distance increase when it has gone too far. Unfortunately they have never said what they think too far is.

Or have they? Well, obviously they haven't said specifically (some precise yardage) what they think too far is but I feel we can see that they are taking steps (and have for about four years) to figure out how to begin to define what too far is. At least a few things they have asked manufacturers to do would indicate that. The three areas of their study (MOI, spin generation, the ball) they have recently explained would  indicate that.

On this thread there're a number of interesting opinions on a number of things, as you say. Like you, I'm not very technical in these matters but I feel the USGA answered some of my fundamental questions on these issues being discussed here.

Some on here such as Garland Bayley have maintained the manufacturers altered the spin rate of the golf ball unnaturally. Of course that is ridiculous. There have been high spinning and low spinning golf balls for decades. They are all legal, always have been and the fact of the matter is the R&A/USGA has never regulated the spin rate of the golf ball and they still don't, so how anyone could think something 'unnatural' has happened regarding the spin rate of the golf ball is beyond me.

Others who are contributing posts that are technically related to the testing and performance of golf balls and distance regulation seem to be acting as if the USGA Tech Center has never existed. They seem to be suggesting their own opinions and ideas of how I&B should be tested and regulated as if the USGA Tech Center had never thought of such things.

We have contributors like David Moriarty who continues to argue for the relevency of some 'hypothetical" premises of his own and constantly attempts to construct his own graphs and analyses (also hypotheitcal ) to prove whatever minor point about a ProVx's unfairness and disproportionality he seems to be subscribing to.

I don't know what Brent Hutto does for a living but from everything I can see he's been saying in a technical sense he is completely in-line with what the USGA explained to me (in a technical sense).

John Vander Borght has given a very accurate account of both how and why distance has increased in the last ten and five years and what the USGA was trying to accomplish back then and is apparenlty trying to accomplish now and in the future.

It seems half these contributors on here just want to blame the USGA for things that have happened in the past as if they would have done things differently. That of course is always easy to say after the fact and app ten to twenty years after the fact. Would they have said the same things they are now 10 to 20 years ago? Well, we certainly know they didn't and it's pretty obvious to me thay wouldn't have any more than the rest of us who are so much older didn't really see this spike coming, and very much within the existing R&A/USGA rules and regs.

The thing to really keep our eye on when it comes to the golf ball itself and distance is what the eventual result will be and will mean of these new prototype sample balls the USGA Tech Center has asked for from all the manufacturers which must go 15 and 25 yards less far. (and what will result in a distance control context from their investigation of MOI and spin generation will be interesting to watch too).

Has the USGA Tech Center told the manufacturers what specs are required to make these prototype sample balls that go 15 and 25 yards less far? No they have not. They have told them that however they want to make them to go 15 and 25 yards less far is up to the manufacturers and that the USGA will study all those prototype sample balls to determine both how and why they go 15 and 25 yards less far.

The fact of that last paragraph alone could have some real significance in vaious ways and in various areas as this entire distance saga continues to unfold over time. Mark my words.  

[George Pazin]

I don't deal in "fair" when it comes to golf.

I think "fairness" is a four letter word in golf - when it comes to design.

When it comes to rules and B&I, however, fair is darn near everything.

I think Tuft's book has the two main premises as play it as it lies, and treat like situations the same, which I interpret as fairness in the rules.

Dave M, I think it's been covered in this thread, but I'll try to repeat it in a shorter fashion. It appears as though the switch to solid balls by better players did help them more than lesser players, but it also appears that this is more due to their ability than any sort of rigging of the game or circumventing of the rules.

I'm not sure what the answer to the distance problem is, but I do believe a problem exists. I know the last "solutions" I want to see attempted are continued disfiguring of older courses, continued building of ever longer, less walkable courses, and more narrowing of fairways and higher rough.

[Garland Bayley]

... Obviously for decades all the golfers who used those two different types didn't think what they were using was INFERIOR. If they did think that then why the hell did they use it?  
...

Well Tom, not so obviously. We used the INFERIOR balls then and now, because we are cheapskates! Also, some of us are so bad that we get no benefit from using SUPERIOR balls like the wound balata and the prov.

Guess this one will have to go down as the one or two things you have gotten wrong in those > 20,000 posts of yours.

[Garland Bayley]

I don't know how to post pictures here. If someone wants to create a pictorial graph of the following hypothetical data, I would appreciate it.

loft  10 degrees 20 degrees 30 degrees 40 degress 50 degrees 60 degrees
rock      200            300           400           500           600            700
rockflite 2000          2500         3000         3500         4000            4500
balata    4000         4800          5600         6400         7200           8000
prov       2000         5000          6200         7000         7900          8200  

What I call natural is the graph of the hypothetical spin rates of the rock, the rockflite, and the wound balata. Note that they are linear. What I call unnatural is the graph of the prov. Note that it is nonlinear and cross both the graphs of the rockflite and balata.
If you add the feathery, the first rubber balls, etc. I believe the graphs would all be linear.

Perhaps you have a better term than natural/unnatural, but please don't say you don't understand what I mean.

[JohnV]

Garland,

I believe that if your hypotheses were true, the Pro-V1 would go totally inconsistent distances as the loft were varied.  Both the lift and the drag are dependent on the spin of the ball, therefore if they varied like you seem to think they do, the ball would go radically different distances between lofts.

I also find it hard to believe that a ProV1 spins more than a balata when hit with a wedge.  Balata's backed up way more than the current balls ever do.

[A.G._Crockett]

Garland,
You are right that the ProV spins less off the driver than it does off a wedge, but you assume that the change in the spin rates for every other ball in your hypothetical is constant through the lofts, while the ProV does magical things, spinning as little off the driver as the Topflites, and MORE off the wedge as the balatas.  This is not true.

What the ProV does is "hybridize" the spin rates of the old distance balls and the balatas.  BUT, and this is critically important, a ProV STILL spins much more than a surlyn ball off the driver, and way, way less than a balata ball off a full wedge.  The sacrifice of spin around the greens is worth the extra distance off the tee to good players, not to mention the durability and consistency relative to balata, and so they put ProV's in play.

You are writing as if the ProV is maxed out on both ends, and that just isn't so.  

[DMoriarty]

Dave M, I think it's been covered in this thread, but I'll try to repeat it in a shorter fashion. It appears as though the switch to solid balls by better players did help them more than lesser players, but it also appears that this is more due to their ability than any sort of rigging of the game or circumventing of the rules.

George, now I am really confused.  It sounds to me like we agree.    We agree that the newer solid balls have benefited the better players more than the worse players.  We agree that this is because of the superior ability of the better players, namely their ability to swing faster and more efficiently.  We even agree that these changes came about within the rules.  

What I dont understand is your concept of fairness.  As far as I am concerned if the game is out of balance, it ought to be put back in balance, no matter how it got out of balance in the first place.  The game has changed and the rules havent kept up.  To put this in terms of your notion of fairness, the imbalance in the game has grown to the point where we are now trying to treat unlike situations the same, and by your definition that is not fair.
_____________________

By the way George, I looked at the Titleist website and the bulk of their female players play the ProV1, and not the ProV1x.   Assuming (as you do above) that these women know what they are doing, doesnt this say something about the appropriateness of the ProV1x for those with slower swing speeds?  

[George Pazin]

Dave, my concept of fairness is that we all have the opportunity to play the same clubs under the same conditions, and that unfairness implies the discontinuity that many had thought existed. If the increases are linear, that implies fairness to me. That a better player should be forced to play a higher spinning ball to "restore balance" implies unfairness to me.

As I said, I don't know what the answer to restoring the balance of accuracy versus power is.

I know I'd very much like to see a rolled back ball tested in some tournament, and I don't think it would be that tough to do. Nike has made a big deal out of how they specially designed a ball for Tiger (and DD when he was on top of his game)(come to think of it, that implies a certain degree of unfairness to me - would they custom design a ball for me?). If they could do that, how tough could it be to simply design a rolled back ball to experiment with?

As for the prov1 and prov1x for women, I don't know what the balance is, it's anecdotal for me that when I look at GD's or TGC's What's in the Bag snippets, there seem to be a lot of women playing either. I have always been under the impression that the prov1x was simply a slightly lesser spinning version of the prov1, so the player is asked to make the decision of whether the increased distance off the tee is worth the lessened control around and into the greens. I'm not aware that the prov1x requires any special launch characteristics that lesser swing speed golfers aren't capable of, while providing a bonus to those who do (hope that made sense).

[A.G._Crockett]

Wouldn't the difference between the ProV1 and the ProV1x be pretty simple?  If I need a little more backspin on the ball to launch off the tee at an optimum angle, I should use the ProV.  If I don't need that extra backspin, then the ProV1x would be better for me.   That could be because of swing speed, or preferred loft, or preferred shaft, or ball flight shape, or swing plane, or that I like the red numeral better than the black one.

That doesn't mean the ProV1 is made for slow swingers; it is just another way that players optimize.  If you can get a pattern from the men's list on the Titleist website as to who uses which one and why, I'd love to know what it is.

[DMoriarty]

Dave, my concept of fairness is that we all have the opportunity to play the same clubs under the same conditions, and that unfairness implies the discontinuity that many had thought existed. If the increases are linear, that implies fairness to me. That a better player should be forced to play a higher spinning ball to "restore balance" implies unfairness to me.

George,  Surely you don't think I want to bifurcate the rules and force the better player to play different equipment, do you?  Where on earth did I ever say anything like that?  I've never been much of an advocate of a tournament ball.  I dont think it is necessary or a good idea.

As for a linear distance curve implying fairness I don't get what you mean or why you would think this.  What if a distance curve was completely flat, where we all hit it the same distance regardless of swing speed-- would you consider this type of linear distance curve fair?   Or what if a distance curve was linear but very, very steep, so each tiny increase in swing speed produced huge jumps in distance-- would you consider this linear distance curve fair?  Would you consider everything fair and fine if a 90 mph swing speed produced 1/2 the distance of a 120 mph swing speed, so long as the chart was linear??   Is it unfair to better players that the actual curves fall slightly short of linear??  What ever happened to the principle behind playing it as it lies?

The discussion of linearity is a red herring and a non-issue.   All of these conversations over the past months have assumed linearity.  It isnt the shape (linearity) of the line that matters, it is the slope.  The steeper the line, the more the ball incrimentally benefits the faster swing.  Even John V. has acknowledged this in past threads!   I havent seen him change his mind on this, even with this new article.      

As I said, I don't know what the answer to restoring the balance of accuracy versus power is.

The "balance of accuracy versus power?"   No wonder we are at speaking past each other!  The growing importance of power vs. accuracy is a symptom of the distance problem, but not the problem itself.   The balance to which I was referring was simply the balance between how far short hitters hit it when compared to how far longer hitters hit it.   If this gap becomes too great we no longer effectively fit on the same courses, and arent really even playing the same game.  

I know I'd very much like to see a rolled back ball tested in some tournament, and I don't think it would be that tough to do. Nike has made a big deal out of how they specially designed a ball for Tiger (and DD when he was on top of his game)(come to think of it, that implies a certain degree of unfairness to me - would they custom design a ball for me?). If they could do that, how tough could it be to simply design a rolled back ball to experiment with?

Titleist has applied for a patent on their reduced distance ball.  It looks as if the ball will, among other things, reduce the COR of the collision, which I believe will flatten the distance curve, meaning that the big hitter will have less distance advantage over the shorter player.  

As for the prov1 and prov1x for women, I don't know what the balance is, it's anecdotal for me that when I look at GD's or TGC's What's in the Bag snippets, there seem to be a lot of women playing either. I have always been under the impression that the prov1x was simply a slightly lesser spinning version of the prov1, so the player is asked to make the decision of whether the increased distance off the tee is worth the lessened control around and into the greens. I'm not aware that the prov1x requires any special launch characteristics that lesser swing speed golfers aren't capable of, while providing a bonus to those who do (hope that made sense).

Not sure I understand what you are saying.   My understanding is that the bulk of female tour players and many male tour players hit the ProV1 over the ProV1x because at their relatively slower swing speeds the ProV1x does not fly any further than the ProV1, or at least it doesnt fly far enough by the ProV1 to justify the change.

[DMoriarty]

Wouldn't the difference between the ProV1 and the ProV1x be pretty simple?  If I need a little more backspin on the ball to launch off the tee at an optimum angle, I should use the ProV.  If I don't need that extra backspin, then the ProV1x would be better for me.   That could be because of swing speed, or preferred loft, or preferred shaft, or ball flight shape, or swing plane, or that I like the red numeral better than the black one.

That doesn't mean the ProV1 is made for slow swingers; it is just another way that players optimize.  If you can get a pattern from the men's list on the Titleist website as to who uses which one and why, I'd love to know what it is.

While some players may choose the red number because they like red or because of ego (more likely because of ego) this isnt the type of decision making that will necessarily enhance performance.

My understanding is that the primary reason that some players cannot properly launch the ProV1x is because they do not generate sufficient force to create the ball velocity necessary for proper lift.  So while the ProV1 certainly wasnt made for "slow swingers" the ProV1x was made for "very fast swingers."  

Earlier this year I tried to look in detail at the driving performance of those who switched to the ProV1x in 2003, compared to the rest of the field.   While imperfect date rendered the results somewhat "anecdotal," the ProV1x users generally gained significantly more distance that year than the rest of the field.   I think something like 23 out of the top 25 gainers that year used the new ProV1x.  

Out of curiosity I am trying to work on something like what you suggest but havent had the time to put it all together yet.  

[Bryan Izatt]

Wouldn't the difference between the ProV1 and the ProV1x be pretty simple?  If I need a little more backspin on the ball to launch off the tee at an optimum angle, I should use the ProV.

The launch angle is largely influenced by the loft of the club face and the swing angle of attack.  The spin on the ball, combined with launch angle and launch speed determines distance.  The optimum launch angles and spin rates to achieve maximum carry for given swing speeds are fairly well known.  Selecting a ball such as the V1 or V1x or other to achieve an optimum spin rate to go with your launch angle and swing speed would be the way to go.  

 If I don't need that extra backspin, then the ProV1x would be better for me.   That could be because of swing speed, or preferred loft, or preferred shaft, or ball flight shape, or swing plane, or that I like the red numeral better than the black one.

That doesn't mean the ProV1 is made for slow swingers; it is just another way that players optimize.  

Yes, it's a way to optimize.  What many people are not aware of is that low spinning and high launching only works well for high swing speeds.  In that context the V1 is better suited  than the V1x for relatively slower swing speeds.  Following is a quote from the Wishon golf site that addresses this point:

"Even though much has been said in the past year about the combination of higher launch angle, lower backspin and high ball velocity being the key to greater distance, TWGT research has also shown that this combination including a low spin rate is only right for golfers who are able to generate a ball speed of 155mph and higher (approx. swing speed of 105mph and above). For all other golfers with a ball velocity of less than 155 mph, MORE backspin will help increase distance, with the lower the ball speed, the more spin is required for optimization."  

If you can get a pattern from the men's list on the Titleist website as to who uses which one and why, I'd love to know what it is.

[A.G._Crockett]

Wouldn't the difference between the ProV1 and the ProV1x be pretty simple?  If I need a little more backspin on the ball to launch off the tee at an optimum angle, I should use the ProV.  If I don't need that extra backspin, then the ProV1x would be better for me.   That could be because of swing speed, or preferred loft, or preferred shaft, or ball flight shape, or swing plane, or that I like the red numeral better than the black one.

That doesn't mean the ProV1 is made for slow swingers; it is just another way that players optimize.  If you can get a pattern from the men's list on the Titleist website as to who uses which one and why, I'd love to know what it is.

While some players may choose the red number because they like red or because of ego (more likely because of ego) this isnt the type of decision making that will necessarily enhance performance.

My understanding is that the primary reason that some players cannot properly launch the ProV1x is because they do not generate sufficient force to create the ball velocity necessary for proper lift.  So while the ProV1 certainly wasnt made for "slow swingers" the ProV1x was made for "very fast swingers."  

Earlier this year I tried to look in detail at the driving performance of those who switched to the ProV1x in 2003, compared to the rest of the field.   While imperfect date rendered the results somewhat "anecdotal," the ProV1x users generally gained significantly more distance that year than the rest of the field.   I think something like 23 out of the top 25 gainers that year used the new ProV1x.  

Out of curiosity I am trying to work on something like what you suggest but havent had the time to put it all together yet.  

David,
Is another possibility that players to have a more upright swing tend to launch the ball higher, and so a lower spinning ball (the X) would be a better fit?  Meanwhile, a player with a lower launch due to a flatter swing plane might benefit from the lift of the ball with more spin, even though his or her swing speed was identical or even faster than the X user?  When talking about professional golfers, I would think there could be at least as much variation in swing plane as in swing speed, and the testing that the various companies do with their pros is to get the optimum launch angle.

[George Pazin]

Now we're gettin' somewhere! At least in terms of me understanding your position.

Easy questions first:

No, I don't want a flat slope, nor an almost vertical one. In fact, I don't have a big problem with the current slope, but maybe subconsciously that's because I don't have a distance problem. I'll have to think more about whether or not I think the current slope is "wrong".

v1 vs. v1x:

As I said, my understanding of the difference was simply that you're giving up a little spin in all areas. If you want a little more off the tee, you choose the "x", if not, you go with the regular v1. I was under the impression that was why Phil, for example, returned to the regular v1 after dabbling with the x - he had all the distance he needed, so he preferred the extra control with the regular. You may be correct on the launch thing, with the ball being designed for higher swing speeds, but I don't think so. I think it's simply a matter of opting for a little more distance at the price of control.

The real question:

It occured to me, after my last post, that maybe people ought to give their reasons for what they perceive the "distance problem" to be, or if it even exists at all for them (JohnK certainly doesn't seem to think there's a problem at all, for example).

For me, there are two real issues:

1) lengthening courses, both through stretching older classics and building newer unwalkable beasts; and

2) re-establishing some choice into the game, some recognition of the old tortoise/hare question the old designers spoke of. The first is clear cut (at least I think it is), the second goes back to making the game more interesting and more entertaining, at least to me. I hate flogging and I hate aerial drop and stop golf, where the only real decision is which club to hit. I loved the Open at Shinnecock.

You seem to feel the big problem with distance is flattening the slope of the distance curve. I really don't care what other people are doing (but again, that could be because I hit it okay distance wise). The only reason I don't like seeing Tiger/Phil/Bubba/JB Holmes/whoever hit it 350 is that, each time it happens, I know someone somewhere is either planning on the next destruction of a classic course or planning on the next 8,000 yard "masterpiece".

The common story about the changes to this year's Augusta was that yardage was added to #11 because Hootie didn't like seeing Phil hit a sand wedge into the hole. That's about as immature and ill thought out a reason for changing a classic hole I've ever heard, imho. It was one shot, get over it. But this view happens again and again. That's what scares me, not the actual difference between Phil's drive and mine on the same hole. He's a golf pro, I'm a regular guy with a wife, a child and a real job.

[Bryan Izatt]

Since I see a 10 yard difference between two current tour balls tested under the same conditions, I guess I would think a disproportionate gain would be something greater than that.  If you think 5-6 yards is disproportionate that's fine.  I was just trying to establish the meaning of the word in your terms.

Again Bryan I remind you that the the numbers in my hypo are rather meaningless.  I understood that  Looking at the USGA chart we can see that at least two of the lines seperate by at around 10 yards in around 20 mph increased swing speed(100 to 120.)  Surely we can agree that a 10 yard difference between balls is significant, can we not?    Sure, we could agree a 10 yard difference is significant.  Do you agree that 10 yards would be your definition of disproprtionate?  If there is as much as a 10 yard difference in 5 conforming modern Tour-played balls of similar construction, then would you not agree that disproportionate would need to be larger than that?

As to swing speeds, I think you are seriously under-estimating average swing speeds.  Amongst other things, I make clubs for people, and have used Beltronic swing speed monitors to measure swing speed.  At my course last fall, I measured half a dozen people, between mid 50's and late 60's in age.  Even the shortest, oldest of them was above 90 mph.  At 85 mph you're only getting 200 yards off the tee.  Most people I've seen play get at least 200 yards.

I may be underestimating average swing speeds, but I don't think I am too far off.    I havent found a definite answer but various sources online put the average for males at between 80 and 85 mph.   I am not sure but I think this may exclude senior males.   Someone here must  have reliable numbers for this.   Hasnt someone on here claimed on multiple occassions that most players drive the ball well less than 200 yards, on average?

 How many people have you played with or seen play, that were unable to reach a 200 yard par 3 with a driver in hand, if they hit it square?  Not many in my experience, but perhaps yours is different.  
 
 
Even if we assume that the average male swing speed is 85 mph then a chart starting at 90 mph does not go nearly low enough to show anything meaningful about how balls perform across a true spectrum of golfers.  Are you suggesting that the disproportionate gain you think is there is only applicable between tour pros at 120 mph vs weekend warriors at 80 mph?

My guess is that there aren't a lot of balls out there today that would cross these lines and be flatter.  On that I guess we'll disagree.

 

I am curious, on what basis do you make this guess?   Probably the same basis as you make your conjecture that they do cross.  Well, actually based on the statement in the USGA paper that: "Actually, there is no extra distance “bonus” for high swing speeds.  This is true for the new tour balls, and  all others as well."  Do you really believe that a golfer with swing speed of, say, 75 or 80 mph will get just as much distance from a ProV1x as from a ball geared toward slower swings, like the Lady Precept, or whatever is this year's equivalent?  No.  Such a golfer would get the maximum distance by optimizing the ball based on its spin rate for his swing speed and launch angle. Generally at that swing speed more spin would be good, V1x would be bad.  How much worse?  I'd have to research that one.   Do you really believe that a Pro with a swing speed of 130+ would hit a ball like the Lady Precept close to as far as he hits a ProV1x?  I don't know.  What do you mean by "close to as far"?  Do you mean 10 or 20 or 30 yards less? I'd need to know what the ball's spin rate is at that speed and the launch angle and the COR.      

[DMoriarty]

David,
Is another possibility that players to have a more upright swing tend to launch the ball higher, and so a lower spinning ball (the X) would be a better fit?  Meanwhile, a player with a lower launch due to a flatter swing plane might benefit from the lift of the ball with more spin, even though his or her swing speed was identical or even faster than the X user?  When talking about professional golfers, I would think there could be at least as much variation in swing plane as in swing speed, and the testing that the various companies do with their pros is to get the optimum launch angle.

I don't know that this is a realistic possibility.  I dont understand all the physics, but my understanding is that you need to produce quite a bit of ball velocity to make the switch to the ProV1x worthwhile from a distance perspective.  

I think Bryan explains this better than I can in his post to you immediately above.  

By the way, of the Titleist players listed in the final stats of the 2005 PGA season, the ProV1x (from the titleist website) users hit it over 7 yards further than the ProV1 users.  
______________________________

v1 vs. v1x:

As I said, my understanding of the difference was simply that you're giving up a little spin in all areas. If you want a little more off the tee, you choose the "x", if not, you go with the regular v1. I was under the impression that was why Phil, for example, returned to the regular v1 after dabbling with the x - he had all the distance he needed, so he preferred the extra control with the regular. You may be correct on the launch thing, with the ball being designed for higher swing speeds, but I don't think so. I think it's simply a matter of opting for a little more distance at the price of control.

I think it is a little simpler than this.   I don't think that slower swingers get a distance benefit (or much of one) from using the ProV1.  That being said, there may be a trade off between distance and control, but really only for very fast swingers.

You seem to feel the big problem with distance is flattening the slope of the distance curve.

My problems twofold.  Both are both related architecture.

1.  Same as you, I dont like our great courses getting ruined or new 8000 yard courses being built.  

2.  The distance gap between big hitters and short hitters has grown to the point where many courses no longer work well for both groups, especially when a long hitter and a short hitter are close to the same ability.   Think of the changes at Augusta . . . whatever people think of how the changes work for the tournament play, there should be no doubt that they make course worse for the members.  

[DMoriarty]

Do you agree that 10 yards would be your definition of disproprtionate?  If there is as much as a 10 yard difference in 5 conforming modern Tour-played balls of similar construction, then would you not agree that disproportionate would need to be larger than that?

Huh?  In the context of this discussion, I dont really consider "disproportionate" to be a subjective value term.  In terms of this discussion, a 1 yard net increase is disproportionate, 10 yards is disproportionate, 20 yards is disproportionate.   We can talk about what degree of disproportionality we should be concerned with, but the meaning of "disproportonate" is what it is.  

As an aside (I do think it is an aside)  I dont read much significance into the fact that there is 10 yards difference in the balls used by the Pros, especially when only one of the balls the outlier across the range.  This ball must either feel very good to some players or it is evidence that some player put their sponsors above their max. performance.  

Ever since we first started discussing this stuff you keep trying to get me to commit to some specific distance disparity (usually 10 yards) with which we should be concerned.  Given the lack a complete data set, I just cant and wont throw out numbers.

 How many people have you played with or seen play, that were unable to reach a 200 yard par 3 with a driver in hand, if they hit it square?  Not many in my experience, but perhaps yours is different.  

Some, but my playing partners are not an accurate cross section of the golfing public.  Anyway, I was just telling you what I read on the web and what I seem to recall reading on this board.  

 Are you suggesting that the disproportionate gain you think is there is only applicable between tour pros at 120 mph vs weekend warriors at 80 mph?

Not sure what you are getting at here.   I can tell you that I don't give a hoot about the driving distances on Tour, except that these guys are often used to the justification for ruining courses.  I focus on the Tour stats because those are the stats we have.  As to why the USGA focuses on Tour swing speeds, I have no idea.  There paper would have been much more enlightening had they used a wider variety of balls and swing speeds.  

I am concerned with how well golfers fit together on golf courses, and think a segment of golfers-- mostly but not exclusively recreational golfers-- have been left behind by technology.  

My guess is that there aren't a lot of balls out there today that would cross these lines and be flatter.  On that I guess we'll disagree.
I am curious, on what basis do you make this guess?   Probably the same basis as you make your conjecture that they do cross.  Well, actually based on the statement in the USGA paper that: "Actually, there is no extra distance “bonus” for high swing speeds.  This is true for the new tour balls, and  all others as well."

 

Don't you agree that this portion of the the USGA paper is talking about the curves for individual balls, and simply stating that they don't slope upward even at high swing speeds?   If so, then this has absolutely nothing to do with whether the distance curves of two different balls will cross.   In fact look at their data.  On one of the charts two of the distance curves do cross.   Two others come together, then move apart again.  

Do you really believe that a golfer with swing speed of, say, 75 or 80 mph will get just as much distance from a ProV1x as from a ball geared toward slower swings, like the Lady Precept, or whatever is this year's equivalent?  No.  Such a golfer would get the maximum distance by optimizing the ball based on its spin rate for his swing speed and launch angle. Generally at that swing speed more spin would be good, V1x would be bad.  How much worse?  I'd have to research that one.   Do you really believe that a Pro with a swing speed of 130+ would hit a ball like the Lady Precept close to as far as he hits a ProV1x?  I don't know.  What do you mean by "close to as far"?  Do you mean 10 or 20 or 30 yards less? I'd need to know what the ball's spin rate is at that speed and the launch angle and the COR.      

I didnt have a specific amount in mind.  How much less do you think it would be?  However much, if you agree that the 130+ swinger would hit the other ball less far by any distance, then you agree that the respective distance curves of these two balls would cross and only those with swing speeds faster than this point would benefit from the ProV1x, compared to the other ball.  

[Bryan Izatt]

 We can talk about what degree of disproportionality we should be concerned with, but the meaning of "disproportonate" is what it is.  

I guess that was the point I was trying to address with you.  I took your previous comments on disproportionate to mean significantly large.  So, at what level of disproportionality do you think we should be concerned?    

____________________________________________

Ever since we first started discussing this stuff you keep trying to get me to commit to some specific distance disparity (usually 10 yards) with which we should be concerned.  Given the lack a complete data set, I just cant and wont throw out numbers.

 You have previously taken a position that there is disproportionality and implied that it is significant.  I just keep trying to understand what constitutes significant in your mind.

____________________________________________

 Are you suggesting that the disproportionate gain you think is there is only applicable between tour pros at 120 mph vs weekend warriors at 80 mph?

Not sure what you are getting at here.   I can tell you that I don't give a hoot about the driving distances on Tour, except that these guys are often used to the justification for ruining courses.  I focus on the Tour stats because those are the stats we have.  As to why the USGA focuses on Tour swing speeds, I have no idea.  There paper would have been much more enlightening had they used a wider variety of balls and swing speeds.

I guess I misunderstood your previous posts.  You lamented that it's too bad that the USGA study didn't go to lower speeds than 90 mph, because there might be some instructive information at those lower speeds.  From that I assumed your point of comparison was low speed swingers below 90 mph, as compared to high speed swingers at 130 mph.  The Tour players and only a few of them are the most visible players at that swing speed.  

I am concerned with how well golfers fit together on golf courses, and think a segment of golfers-- mostly but not exclusively recreational golfers-- have been left behind by technology.  

 Now, I'm confused again.  Are you saying the slow swinging recreational golfer has been left behind the high speed swinging recreational golfer? Or the competitive amateur? or the pros?  As it relates to golfers fitting together on golf courses, shouldn't slow swing recreational players play the white tees.  The competitive amateurs the blue tees, and the pros, the tips?  Surely most people can fit most courses if they select the right tee blocks to play from.  

I didnt have a specific amount in mind.  How much less do you think it would be?  However much, if you agree that the 130+ swinger would hit the other ball less far by any distance, then you agree that the respective distance curves of these two balls would cross and only those with swing speeds faster than this point would benefit from the ProV1x, compared to the other ball.

I've never disputed that the V1x will go further than  a V1 or other higher spinning balls, for example, at optimal launch conditions for high speed swingers.  According to the Wishon Trajectory Software, a ball launched at the same ball speed and launch angle by a 110 mph swing, but, with 1000 rpms less spin  would gain 1 yard in carry distance.  I don't know what it would be at 130 mph.  

[Bryan Izatt]

David,

My problems twofold.  Both are both related architecture.

1.  Same as you, I dont like our great courses getting ruined or new 8000 yard courses being built.

2.  The distance gap between big hitters and short hitters has grown to the point where many courses no longer work well for both groups, especially when a long hitter and a short hitter are close to the same ability.  Think of the changes at Augusta . . . whatever people think of how the changes work for the tournament play, there should be no doubt that they make course worse for the members.

Regarding your second point, not to keep carping on this, but, according to the USGA study from 2000-2005, and John V's comparison of 1995 to 2005, for the PGA Tour, there is no increasing distance gap between the slow and fast swingers.

Re Augusta, are you referring to the increased length?  If so, how does that impact the members?  Surely they aren't foolish enough to play the Masters tees are they?  If you're referring to the second cut, is that kept in place for member play?  Is its impact significant?  Now, the trees may have a negative impact on the members.  Are they in play from the members tees?