[Tom Roewer]

I just spoke with my brother who is competing in the O.G.A.tournament @ Springfield, teeing it up this morning.  He said that the committee had the players hit shots with their ball preference and then with the "tournament ball", while measuring launch angles and distances.  David said that he carried his (PRO V1) 241 yds. with driver and 247 yds. with the tournament ball with the same run-out.  He realized very little difference in the iron shots.  He added that the college players were carrying their drivers about 250 with the tournament ball.  He noted that the ball reacted very well around the green and putted very well!
  I wonder if the ball companies are at all worried about golfers who have been paying $55-$75 for their dozens realizing that they get almost the same performance from a ball (type) that costs much less with minimal change in performance.
  Dvae said that he will give me an update later today after he plays round 1.      

[Brent Hutto]

Thanks for the scoop, Tom. It will be interesting to hear Dave's take on the whole experiment once the tournamnet is done. Our man on the inside, so to speak.

[TEPaul]

Tom:

If performance characteristics go the way I sort of expect them to with that ball the OGA has selected and with the way the USGA tech center seems to imply they should, it would appear the slower swing speeds will not be affected carry distance-wise as much as the higher swing speed players will be.

If the physics of it are as I expect they are it would appear that those who swing at 105-110 mph and definitely well above that will probably be putting somewhat of an initially flat and then somewhat steeply rising trajectory on their shots much like the old higher spinning balls of yesteryear, while those who swing below that MPH are not so capable of producing that old trajectory. That trajectory, by the way, is pretty much the opposite of carry distance enhancing.

[David Wigler]

...I wonder if the ball companies are at all worried about golfers who have been paying $55-$75 for their dozens realizing that they get almost the same performance from a ball (type) that costs much less with minimal change in performance....      

Tom,

Having played a few Michigan events, I can tell you that any college kid today who carries the ball 250 is not very competitive.  At the US Amateur at Oakland Hills, the 15th on the North Course is a 325 yard hole with 240 yards downhill from the tee to the pond.  It is just about 300 to carry the pond, so everyone hits 4 iron or 5 iron.  That is every one of us mid-ams hits 4 iron or 5 iron.  I am not sure I saw a single College kid who did not take out the Driver and bomb it over the pond and next to the green.  If the ball restricts a high swing speed to 250 yards of carry, than Tom is right, it is resembling what the old Tour Balata used to do and although great for the game of golf, I do not believe they will be jumping off the shelves so youngsters can lose 40 yards or more of total distance.

[Tom Roewer]

David:  I guess you would include the likes of Corey Pavin and Fred Funk as "non-competitive" also with your logic.

[TEPaul]

TomR:

But David Wigler is completely correct, Most of these elite players today, including the elite players in the local, state and amateur ranks carry the ball, these new age balls like ProVs, a whole lot farther than that.

I officiate those events all the time and that fact is completely unmistakable and undeniable. The CARRY distances for the long half of these fields is now 275-300+.

Maybe you don't want to admit it but that doesn't make it any less true.

These guys today, including some of the ones from 15 years ago can now regularly CARRY the ball anywhere from 25-50 yards farther than they could 15 years ago.

For the long end of this OGA event where they'll apparently be using what OGA terms a "softer" ball (ie higher spinning ball) I doubt this will be as true with the long or high mph side of the field and perhaps even significantly so.

[JohnV]

So this is fair?  A player who carries a ProV1 241 carries this ball 247 and a college player who probably swings a lot faster and carries a ProV1 275-300 only carries it 250.

It seems to me that this is the opposite of fair, a player who has a better/faster swing is not getting any benefit from it.

Maybe the big swinger gets too much from the Pro V1, but he is getting too little from this ball, it only turns the injustice the other way.  All things considered, I prefer the way it is, at least you get rewarded (even if it is too much) for that ability.

[Steve Lang]

 
Met some "travelling" ajga kids this summer when they came to The Woodlands for a tourney.. they travel the country playing jr events, trying to be seen by college scouts.. one of two only used his 3-wood for tourney to keep out of trouble beyond 285 yds.. yeh, i can relate to that (in my dreams)

[Brian Joines]

As a fairly long hitter myself, I would hate to see this. Espescially since my irons leave a lot to be desired. I can make up for some of my average iron games with the distance off the tee. If that wasn't the case, I'd be in some real trouble.

[Wayne_Kozun]

How long until we find out exactly what ball this is?  I presume someone will take one of these balls and saw them in half and try to identify them, will they not?

[Garland Bayley]

So this is fair?  A player who carries a ProV1 241 carries this ball 247 and a college player who probably swings a lot faster and carries a ProV1 275-300 only carries it 250.

It seems to me that this is the opposite of fair, a player who has a better/faster swing is not getting any benefit from it.

Maybe the big swinger gets too much from the Pro V1, but he is getting too little from this ball, it only turns the injustice the other way.  All things considered, I prefer the way it is, at least you get rewarded (even if it is too much) for that ability.

I get it John! Golf was unfair until the Strata and then the Pro V1 introduced these artificial spin characteristics to golf balls!

If the young gun wants to carry the pond, then let him hit rockflites! These carry distances are not news! They have been available for a long time! I was hitting these distances in the early 70s. They have just not been available to the elite players, because they always chose to play high spin balls.

The high swing speed player always had an advantage in being able to produce more spin when desired. What's wrong to going back to just that advantage? Why cave in and give him every advantage through artificial technology?
Why not make the spitter legal in baseball?
Why not make sandpaper legal in baseball?

[JohnV]

Garland,

Garland, golf was always unfair and still is.

Under any proposal that rolled back the ball by increasing spin rates, Toprocks would be illegal.  You seem to think that they should continue to be legal, but that a ball which goes the same distance and happens to be able to be controlled by a good player shouldn't be.

Yes, the high swing speed player could spin the ball more.  He could also hit it further (ask those who played against Nicklaus).  But, from the results of the test they did with this ball, he can't hit it further with this ball.  That is wrong.

Since you used the baseball analogy, this looks like a case of forcing Barry Bonds (forgetting the steroids) to have warning track power just because some 150 pound shortstop does.

[Bryan Izatt]

Tom,

Did your brother mention his swing speed and launch angle?  Or those of the college players?  Did they measure spin rate?  What technology did they use to measure (Vector?)  How did they measure rollout?  So many questions.  

Did he mention if the data would be made available to the participants?

I think I'd hold off declaring victory until more of the data is available.  It would be stunning if there was a legally conforming ball out there that increased distance at 105mph swing speed and decreased it by 50 yards for "college" players at 125mph swing speeds.

[Garland Bayley]

John,

We do not know what the USGA is planning for spin regulation. Therefore, it is hard to come to a conclusion at this time that toprocks would be illegal. I have advocated that the spin regulation be essentially that the spin rate be directly proportional to the club loft. Until ball companies figured out how to alter this, we had many years of legal rockflites and balatas.

Furthermore, we have spotty information from Ohio. Clearly no conclusion should be made from it at this time.

I am not sure your baseball analogy of the shortstop vs Barry Bonds is as applicable as mine was. The shortstop uses his capabilities to score in baseball in a different fashion than Barry Bonds does. Much like Corey uses his capabilities differently than J.B. Holmes does.

My analogy spoke to the spin and flight of the pitched ball, much like the altered characteristics of the spin and flight of the struck Pro V1.

[JohnV]

Garland,

I agree that we do not know what the USGA's plans might be.  But, if a minimum spin rate was defined, it very well could mean that Toprocks or Pinnacles are illegal.  The USGA Conforming Ball list contains descriptions of spin rates for the driver and 5-iron.  These are given to them by the company so they are not consistent across companies, but since Pinnacle and the Pro V1 are both made by the same company, it might be possible that they are consistent. Given that, almost all Pinnacles are rated as Low spin while Pro V1s are rated as Medium spin.  Top Flites and Stratas are all Low to Medium.  All the ball companies have figured out is how to combine the best of both worlds.

I definitely agree that we have spotty, anecdotal information from Ohio.  I'm willing to wait for any final conclusions.

I think my analogy is just as applicable since it seems like there are those who are happy that all players are hitting it about the same distance (based on the anecdotes above) which would be the same as my analogy.  If the stronger player with the better swing gets no reward for that, I feel that is wrong.

If the Ohio data showed that the guy who carries it 241 now carries it 247 and the guy who carried it 285 now carries it 265 I would be more able to accept it that 247 to 250.  The bigger hitter deserves the rewards of that.  Now, if spin rates were increased, the ball wouldn't go as straight so he might pay a price for that length and I would be fine with that also.

What I'm saying is that I have no problem with some sort of rollback, but I definitely would have a problem with one which took away all the advantage for superior skill/strength.

[George Pazin]

Seems kind of hard to believe someone could design a ball that would simultaneously benefit shorter hitters and penalize longer hitters. The laws of physics don't generally work that way, at least in my experience.

Still, if they did, I would be very much against it, for exactly the reasons JohnV cites.

[Garland Bayley]

John,

Since there are far more low spin balls than there are high spin balls, I cannot see the USGA ruling that the vast majority of current balls will become illegal.

George,

Hard to believe indeed! I simply do not believe the anecdotal second hand data we have from Ohio so far.

EDIT: I guess I should clarify that. I do not believe what we have so far will hold up in general.

[Adam Clayman]

Did these OGA players opt for optmization? (use older equiptment)

Did they change their driver's out, for clubs that might benefit from this comp ball?

I still don't see the rollback argument being plausable. If these two players, the weak and the strong, are hitting their drives in the same location. Isn't the strong player hitting a higher trajectroy club in, on his next shot, than the shorter hiiter? what has changed ?

It does sound unfair to the higher speed swinger.

Will this experiment have saved the USGA from wasting more time on figuring-out what will be best for the spirit of the game as well as it's welfare?

[JohnV]

Tom, I see your brother shot 76 today and is tied for 21st.  One guy shot 67 and has a 4 shot lead.  Also, Alan Fadel who was the man behind the idea shot 75.  Any comments from your brother?

First day results can be seen here

[T_MacWood]

There was very good article in the Columbus Dispatch this mourning which you can be accessed at http://www.geoffshackelford.com.

[Jim Sweeney]

Does anyone know who is conducting the measuring and analysis that was described in the intial post of this topic? Is it the OGA volunteers, or have they hired someone, OSU physicists, for example, or an independent engineering firm?

In the quotations fromk the Columbus Dispatch article, Popa seems to imply that the USGA is lting about the ball. Does anyone here believe that?

[T_MacWood]

Jim
It wouldn't be the first time their USGA got the wires crossed. They've been known to make mistakes.

[Jim Sweeney]

Tom:

THe USGA has decades of data on ball performance. If the information they put out to the public is inaccurate, how likely is it that it's a mistake?

I'm not making any assertion here, just asking a question based on Jim Popa's quotation from the article. If anyone believes the USGA is misleading golfers, what evidence is there? (NOT anicdotal evidence, like "the ball is going farther that 25 years ago-" duh) but real, solid, we got the dicumentation, take it to court evidence.

[Doug Siebert]

I agree with JVB.  If all this ball does is rob the long hitter of his distance advantage, I hereby propose a new ball that will cause even a perfectly straight shot to curve unexpectedly one way or the other at least 25 feet left or right.  

If this ball just takes away long hitters' length but doesn't impact shorter hitters (not "short" but "shorter", as in 90 mph to 105 mph swing speeds), then something is wrong.

I highly doubt that's what is going on, this is all from an anecdotal report from one guy.  We don't know if his equipment was optimized with the Pro V1, if not, maybe he should have been carrying it 260 or 270 but is using an ill fitting driver?  In addition, the college guys who are only hitting it 250 with this ball, even if they would normally carry a Pro V1 300 would be using equipment that is ill fitted to the new ball.  High swing speeds need a low lofted driver, if this sort of ball becomes the law, I may need to dust off my 6.5* Orlimar!

I agree that just cutting off any advantage to having a swing speed higher than 110 mph would be stupid, but I can't imagine that would be possible.  It certainly wasn't the case in the 80s that a guy swinging at 105 mph and a guy swinging at 120 mph carried the ball same distance.  Though they might have had the same total distance on their drives if the faster guy spun the damn ball as much as me.  I don't know if I ever played with anyone who could carry a driver further than me in the 80s (including a couple rounds with a then PGA pro) but I would get outdriven by guys with better mechanics who hit the ball lower with a nice little draw that ran like a scared rabbit (again, that same PGA pro )

[Bryan Izatt]

There was very good article in the Columbus Dispatch this mourning which you can be accessed at http://www.geoffshackelford.com.

On Shackelford's site, there is also reference to a Golf World index of articles in their next issue which claims the ball is a Volvik, as I speculated it might be a couple of weeks ago.  Perhaps it is the Volvik Pro'sPect which is described as follows on a Volvik site:

" Pro’sPect Z-Urethane 3 PC Ball
        Amateur golfers are looking for a better golf ball that fits their swing speed, not their pro’s swing speed. The unique 70 compression ProsPect Z-Urethane 3 Piece Ball will go a long way to fit the swing speed of the average golfer golfer.
        A premium golf ball, made for a wider range of swing types, Volvik’s new 3 piece construction Pro’sPect Z-Urethane, is the industry’s 1st “affordable” soft urethane cover ball. Its 70 compression core offers penetrating ball flight for a wider range of swing speeds, while its multi-layer construction gives it amazing feel and control around the greens. Slower swing speed translate to more control. A golf ball fit to that swing speed will perform better than a harder construction golf ball. "

Interesting marketing gobbledy-gook.

Presumably the OGA tested the ball before selecting it and felt that it would fly shorter for high swing speeds.  The advertising seems to suggest that it will have penetrating flight trajectory at all speeds.  So maybe it's the low compression that would reign it in.

What will the OGA experiment tell them/us?  I expect that from the tournament use itself there will be nothing useful, since there is no control group or mechanism.  From the pre-tournament testing they should be able to determine how far this ball will fly, how much it will spin, and how it launches relative to swing speed (the infamous Moriarty chart of last winter), assuming they had a reasonable range of swing speeds amonst the 90 odd participants.  As mentioned in a previous post the comparison to the player's current ball will be tainted by the lack of optimization of the driver to the Volvik ball.

My guess of the outcome, if they ever publish it, is that there will be a more or less linear relationship between total distance and swing speed with the Volvik.  I think there will also be a linear relationship between total distance and current ball as well, with a slightly greater slope.  There might be a small reduction in overall distance with the Volvik at high speeds (maybe 10 yards) but it will not be much greater than the margin of error of the experiment.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()