[Jim_Kennedy]

Garland,
I'd have to look, but I was staying pre-solid ball use and 1999 is the year for that.


Edit: 1997 / 278.2   1998 / 281.8

[Garland Bayley]

Garland,
There is no doubt that the ball has had a significant influence.

In 1982 (metalwoods appeared/wound ball era) the median driving distance on Tour for Pros who placed between #5 and # 50 was 265.5 yards; in 1999 (metals/wound) the median was 283.5, and in 2010 (metalwoods/solid balls) the median was 291.

The metalwood/wound ball era added 18 yards to the figures, the solid ball era added 8.

  

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0HFI/is_5_54/ai_101967369/

"According to tests by the Royal and Ancient Golf Club of St. Andrews, the double-digit-handicapper added less than one yard to his average drive from 1996 to 2001. During the same period, tour pros added an average of 12 yards."
(It seems the conversion from wound to solid eats up about 12 of the 18 yards you claim from 1982 to 1999.)

"Golf Digest surveys show that the average golfer's driving distance increased from 193 to 205 yards in the last decade. In the same period, PGA Tour distances increased almost 30 yards."
(The article is 2003, so that would claim and added 30 yards from 1993 to 2003.)


EDIT, I just noticed that you are giving median distances. I don't consider that as meaningful as mean (average). Do you have averages?

FURTHER EDIT: (adding more from the article)
"the PGA Tour driving-distance average has jumped from 260.4 in 1993 to 279.8 in 2002 to 287.8 this year."

"There is no debate that the biggest reason for the largest increase in tour driving distance has been the advances in golf ball technology. When the majority of tour players switched from Titleist wound balls to Titleist's solid-core Pro V1 in late 2000, driving distance increased by more than six yards. That more than doubled the largest one-year gain since stats were first kept in 1980. Now another hot ball, Titleist's Pro V1x, is routinely cited as fueling another distance surge this year."

"The new tour-caliber, multilayer, solid-core balls, which hit the scene in 1996 with the Top-Flite Strata"

[Jim_Kennedy]

The Tour median (#5 thru 50) in 1996 was 277, and in 2001 it was 290, or 13 yards.  By 2000 twenty five percent of the ball count on Tour was non-wound balls, by 2001 it was over ninety percent. The R&A seems to have mixed one era with the other, I did not.

I don't know how GD conducted it's survey, but the median in '93 was 271.3 and 288 in '03.


edit: no, I did the mean. If you want to do the averages be my guest, but I don't think they'll be much different

[Garland Bayley]

...

edit: no, I did the mean. If you want to do the averages be my guest, but I don't think they'll be much different

 

I don't need to do averages, if you have done mean. They are the same thing.
You kept reporting you were giving medians. Which have you been giving? Median or mean?

[Jim_Kennedy]

Brain lapse - median, not mean.

[Jim_Kennedy]

I did the average for 98 and it came out as 279.2, the median was 281.8.
For 1982 the average was 261.5 and the median was 265.5.  

At least a 17.7 gain in yardage during the wound era.

 

[Garland Bayley]

I did the average for 98 and it came out as 279.2, the median was 281.8.
For 1982 the average was 261.5 and the median was 265.5.  

At least a 17.7 gain in yardage during the wound era.

 

You are overlooking that the wound ball era truly ended in 1995. Any data after that mixes in solid ball performance with wound ball performance.

[Garland Bayley]

I did the average for 98 and it came out as 279.2, the median was 281.8.
For 1982 the average was 261.5 and the median was 265.5.  

At least a 17.7 gain in yardage during the wound era.

 

You are overlooking that the wound ball era truly ended in 1995. Any data after that mixes in solid ball performance with wound ball performance.

1995 average PGA Tour driving distance was 263.6.
It looks like there was almost no gain from metal driver heads with the wound balls.
QED!

[Jim_Kennedy]

Garland,
You're incorrect about '95.

Golf Digest, June 2001
For nearly 70 years the undisputed champion of performance golf balls featured rubber windings wrapped around a liquid-filled core. The wound ball's reign ended last October, when market-leader Titleist debuted its solid-core multilayer Pro V1 ball at the Invensys Classic in Las Vegas.
A look at the Darrell Survey of equipment usage on the PGA Tour shows how quickly the knockdown blow came. At the Michelob Championship at Kingsmill the previous week, non wound balls were played by only 28 percent of the field, with just one of 102 Titleist players (Corey Pavin) using a non wound ball. Seven days later in Las Vegas, non wound usage rocketed to 64 percent, including 47 out of 88 Titleist users. By March 2001, the percentage of tour players using nonwound balls had risen to nearly 90 percent (see chart, right). Wound balls may be a whole lot better than the leather pouches Old Tom Morris used to stuff with feathers, but you would never know it by the sea change that has taken place.

What a difference a year makes. At last year's Doral event, non-woundballs were used by a mere 25 percent of the field. In 2001, that number jumped to more than 90 percent.

                                DORAL    DORAL
                                 2000     2001

Liquid-center wound     61.1%      4.2%
Solid-core wound        13.2%      4.9%
Multilayer                  18.8%      89.5%
Two-piece solid          6.9%       1.4%

[Garland Bayley]

Jim,

The Strata debutted in 1996, so data from 1996 on had solid ball data mixed in. Yes, we all know that once Titleist brought out the ProV1, the solid ball reached nearly 100% acceptance.

[John Kavanaugh]

It still surprises me that I witnesses DLIII and Justin Leonard using persimmon drivers at the 97 Masters.

[Grant Saunders]

I dont really think the actual distance a ball travels has increased greatly.

I would back a pinnacle or B51 xd over any of the latest balls as far as distance goes.

The problem is some genius figured out how to make a soft covered ball travel a lot further.

Sacrificing distance in the name of control was a choice you had to make. You could choose the long ball but around the greens it was crap.

[Jim_Kennedy]

3 out of 4 Pros used wound balls in 2001.  Even though I don't think that the stats would be skewed by 25% I'll concede them and be happy with the 12 or so yard gain in the pre PROV1 era. It's still greater than 50% of the gain since.

Jaka,
I guess old habits die hard.

[Garland Bayley]

I dont really think the actual distance a ball travels has increased greatly.

I would back a pinnacle or B51 xd over any of the latest balls as far as distance goes.

The problem is some genius figured out how to make a soft covered ball travel a lot further.

Sacrificing distance in the name of control was a choice you had to make. You could choose the long ball but around the greens it was crap.

You are correct. The tour pros simply did not use anything like the longest ball until the invention of the Strata and other patents by I believe Bridgestone and Precept? I believe they still use balls that are shorter than the longest balls, at least it seems the spin rates of the longest balls are lower than the ProV type ball in the last stats I saw.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Garland,

The Strata didn't perform much differently than a solid core wound ball with a balata cover, it just didn't cut or go out of round very easily. If it added any yards to the average it was a small amount, otherwise we'd have see the same jump in yardage in '96 that the PROV1 offered later on.

[Grant Saunders]

I dont really think the actual distance a ball travels has increased greatly.

I would back a pinnacle or B51 xd over any of the latest balls as far as distance goes.

The problem is some genius figured out how to make a soft covered ball travel a lot further.

Sacrificing distance in the name of control was a choice you had to make. You could choose the long ball but around the greens it was crap.

You are correct. The tour pros simply did not use anything like the longest ball until the invention of the Strata and other patents by I believe Bridgestone and Precept? I believe they still use balls that are shorter than the longest balls, at least it seems the spin rates of the longest balls are lower than the ProV type ball in the last stats I saw.

So, esentially there existed a "tournament ball' situation?

[Garland Bayley]

3 out of 4 Pros used wound balls in 2001.  Even though I don't think that the stats would be skewed by 25% I'll concede them and be happy with the 12 or so yard gain in the pre PROV1 era. It's still greater than 50% of the gain since.

Jaka,
I guess old habits die hard.

You are ignoring that generally there is a year over year increase. You are attributing what part of the year over year increase to player improvement, and what part to metal heads? It seems any improvement from metal heads is nearly indistinguishable from player improvement, whereas as my very first post on the subject pointed out there was a clear discontinuous jump upon the acceptance of the new balls.

Golf Digest has characterized your argument as "no debate", i.e., you have no valid point, in the quote I produced above and replicate here again.

"There is no debate that the biggest reason for the largest increase in tour driving distance has been the advances in golf ball technology. When the majority of tour players switched from Titleist wound balls to Titleist's solid-core Pro V1 in late 2000, driving distance increased by more than six yards. That more than doubled the largest one-year gain since stats were first kept in 1980. Now another hot ball, Titleist's Pro V1x, is routinely cited as fueling another distance surge this year." (emphasis added)

Give it up bro. You're on a dead-end street.

[John Kavanaugh]

Much more than the ball or equipment changed when the best golfers in the world saw Tiger winning with power. If Justin Leonard had won like Tiger from 97 on the stats would be much different. Game strategies always change to follow the winners.

Just look at the change in swing theory since 97.

[Garland Bayley]

I dont really think the actual distance a ball travels has increased greatly.

I would back a pinnacle or B51 xd over any of the latest balls as far as distance goes.

The problem is some genius figured out how to make a soft covered ball travel a lot further.

Sacrificing distance in the name of control was a choice you had to make. You could choose the long ball but around the greens it was crap.

You are correct. The tour pros simply did not use anything like the longest ball until the invention of the Strata and other patents by I believe Bridgestone and Precept? I believe they still use balls that are shorter than the longest balls, at least it seems the spin rates of the longest balls are lower than the ProV type ball in the last stats I saw.

So, esentially there existed a "tournament ball' situation?

NO! There was no ball manufactured for tournaments. There was no requirement that a certain ball be used. There were no special rules designating specs for a tournament ball.

[Grant Saunders]

Not a tournament ball as such but a stiuation where the best players were using a ball that travelled significantly shorter.

They did it by choice and opted for control over distance. An enforced tournament ball would again see the best players using a ball that doesnt travel as far but this time because they have to.

[John Kavanaugh]

If a 24 yr old came out on tour and won nine events including three majors hitting the ball 250 yds off the tee straight down the middle the majority of the tour would start hitting the ball 250 yds straight down the middle.  Look how football has changed in the same time frame as golf. It's not the equipment, it's the ability to adapt to win.

[Ken Moum]

I've been advocating a lighter ball here and elswhere for several years. A John VanerB. has noted in his essay, the 1.55-ounce ball was a monstrous failure in 1935, but he forgets that those balls were  ALL  balata.  Today's balls are far easier to control, which IMHO is a huge part of why today's top players are so damned long.

I watched Gary Woodland grow up in Topeka, and unlike the other really good players I have seen mature, (including the Byrum boys when I lived in Pierre, SD) he never had any fear of the ball leaving the premises.  IOW, he and others of this era learned the game while using a muchm much nigher percentage of their potential power.  Back in the 60s, Jack won some long drive contests @ 300-yards, but never attempted to swing that hard in competition on the course.

The fact is that  a lighter ball would bring shotmaking back for the best player not because the ball would be shorter, but because it would harder to control, just like a balata ball.  But the hidden benefit of it is that this effect would barely be felt by people with lower swing speeds.  Especaiily with today's lower spin balls.

In fact, there's an existing patent that claims that a lighter ball will actually go FARTHER for juniors, women and seniors.  see http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/5497996/description.html

The lighter ball would sit up a little better, stay in the air longer, and generally be less difficult to maneuver.

I want to see a ball that weighs 1.55 to 1.58 ounces.

K

[Ben Sims]

If a 24 yr old came out on tour and won nine events including three majors hitting the ball 250 yds off the tee straight down the middle the majority of the tour would start hitting the ball 250 yds straight down the middle.  Look how football has changed in the same time frame as golf. It's not the equipment, it's the ability to adapt to win.

You don't think the changes in helmets, shoulder pads, artificial turf and cleats haven't had a huge impact on the speed of the game and the violence of the collisions?

[Peter Pallotta]

Ken - thanks much for that post, it was very clear and compelling. And I think JK is right too - "talent" in golf is in large part the ability to maximize the efficacy of the equipment at one's disposal in the context of the nature and challenges of the fields of play as they are normally/usually presented.

Peter

[Ken Moum]

The Tour median (#5 thru 50) in 1996 was 277, and in 2001 it was 290, or 13 yards.  By 2000 twenty five percent of the ball count on Tour was non-wound balls, by 2001 it was over ninety percent. The R&A seems to have mixed one era with the other, I did not.

I don't know how GD conducted it's survey, but the median in '93 was 271.3 and 288 in '03.


edit: no, I did the mean. If you want to do the averages be my guest, but I don't think they'll be much different

Jim, I believe the huge--overlooked--factor in this equation is that none of these things actually caused the ball to go all that much farther.  Remember, Bobby Jones hit some 500-yard drives in the 30s.  George Bayer did it in the 50s.

And Nicklaus did in the 60s and 70s--but not when he was trying to win a golf tournament.

As I said in another post, I played golf against Gary Woodland when he was 15, and he was playing a Maxfli Revolution, and it was MUCH straighter than the balata balls that pros were playing at the time.

And that was before the ProV1 came out.

Over the last 13 years or so, Gary and other top players learned that, unlike Jack, they didn't have to throttle back with the driver to keep it on the golf course.  The combination of big drivers and relatively straight balls have resulted in giant gains for those players, and it's trickled down to the big, strong bombers even at my club.

But it hasn't had that effect for me.  Now, a lighter ball will be shorter at high balls speeds, but more importantly it will rebalance the equation between power and control, to something like what we had in the 1970s.  

At low ball speeds, like me and my wife, it might actually fly farther.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()