[Peter Pallotta]

ha ha - I just noticed that as the long winter drags on, we're all reverting to type:

GJ - thinking mathematics and what he calls logic
Jim - always 'just wondering...' but not really
Me - recapping other people's posts, with no ideas of my own
David M - not accepting the premise, but not letting go
Jeff - writing 5 word sentences, period
Bryan - flipping flow charts that no one understands

What a motley crew! Golf season can't start soon enough!

[Garland Bayley]

The overall distance standard was set based on the longest ball at the time. My best guess would be that it was the TopFlite since Frank does not say.

http://www.franklygolf.com/hot-golf-balls.aspx

[JESII]

...
If an average golfer uses all the latest equipment (including whichever ProV1x you want) and hits one on the screws they'll be demonstrably longer than they were with a 43" steel shafted Persimmon driver and a balata ball. I'd bet it's a higher percentage increase than the Tour guys...
...

If you mean a golfer with an average swing speed of perhaps 90 mph, then that statement is illogical and unmathematical.
In particular, the higher percentage part.
You increase the length of the driver, and get them to hit it on the screws, of course they are longer.

Then how is my statement is illogical?

[JESII]

So David, you disagree with this statement?

If an average golfer uses all the latest equipment (including whichever ProV1x you want) and hits one on the screws they'll be demonstrably longer than they were with a 43" steel shafted Persimmon driver and a balata ball. I'd bet it's a higher percentage increase than the Tour guys...

[DMoriarty]

I don't have enough information to answer one way or another. Do you?

Why do you care so much about what amounts to a fluke?

[Garland Bayley]

Jim,

The reason the pros gained distance with the new ball was the new ball's mitigation of spin produced by their high swing speeds. The slower swingers gained disproportionally less from this mitigation.

[JESII]

David,

Because that "fluke", as you call it, is a representation of potential.

Potential is what the ruling bodies must focus on to create sensible legislation.

Your 390 yard drives do not reflect potential because they were not hit in, what I would call, normal conditions. The 18th tee at Kapalua is not normal. 70 yards of roll in Phoenix is not normal.

[DMoriarty]

Potential?   According to the R&A, between 1996 and 2012 the average driver distance increased by a whopping 3 yards.  The average distance off the tee was 208 yards.   There is your "potential" for you.   

The ruling bodies must focus on reality. Not some pie in the sky idea of what might happen if a 15 handicap happened to hit one like a scratch!   It is not sensible legislation if it only considers occasional flukes!    We all know the braggart who claims he hits it 270 when he is lucky to hit it 220 with any regularity.   You seem to think that his 270 brag is a better representation of his game than what he does round after round, day after day.  I don't see it that way. 

As for the other end of the scale, Bubba Watson is currently averaging 320 off the tee.  Do you think this represents anywhere near his "potential" best drive? Or does it include 3 woods (or less) and babied drivers to keep in play?     

[JESII]

David, as seems to happen all too frequently in this discussions, you seem to be coming unhinged. The R&A study is certainly a couple notches better than your cornfield, but hardly answers the question of what does an average player gain in yardage from mid-90's with a persimmon and balata to today with titanium, graphite, and surlyn when they hit it well.

If you don't think potential matters you're completely off-base. It's a game of skill with equipment regulations made to ensure skill is the key ingredient towards dictating success.

[DMoriarty]

Unhinged?   Not in the least.  I just think it is silly to focus on mythical "potential" based on an occasional lucky strike.  Let's put it this way.  If average golfers ever even began to move toward that potential, they wouldn't be average golfers any more, would they?   

[JMEvensky]

ha ha - I just noticed that as the long winter drags on, we're all reverting to type:

GJ - thinking mathematics and what he calls logic
Jim - always 'just wondering...' but not really
Me - recapping other people's posts, with no ideas of my own
David M - not accepting the premise, but not letting go
Jeff - writing 5 word sentences, period
Bryan - flipping flow charts that no one understands

What a motley crew! Golf season can't start soon enough!

Brevity is the soul of...

[JESII]

Well that's a relief...was worried once you started bolding and underlining words like reality.

If your contention is that the distance spread between top players and average players is too great, the potential distance an average players hits the ball is half of the information you need. Obviously it comforts you to ignore it but that wouldn't be REALISTIC, would it?

[Doug Siebert]

Doug,

What is the Chad Campbell table worth?  Not a whole lot - it's just another anecdotal uncontrolled test.  I thought it was interesting, so shared it.

How much do you think your swing speed increased between the 43.5" rebar shafted heavy persimmon headed driver and your 45" 65 gram tip stiff nanotube shafted 460cc 200 gram titanium headed driver?  Each mph increase is worth 2.5 to 3 yards of distance.

I have no idea, there's no way to tell.  It was actually a 42.75" shaft, I had it made a bit short because I hit it longer than about anyone but always had trouble with control.  Even today I use a 44.75" shaft, not the 45 to 46" all the name brand clubs have these days, because even though I'm not as long as comparison to the longest hitters as I used to be I still have the same struggles with control

I'm pretty sure though that by the time I used my first 400cc driver in 2001 my swing speed with it was almost certainly slower than it was when I hit the persimmon in the 80s.  I had my swing speed measured when I was a freshman in college, using this little thing that clipped onto the hosel.  I have no idea how accurate it was - probably not very - but it indicated 117 mph when I used a normal swing.  When I really tried to kill one I hit 126 mph.  There's no way I was still swinging that hard by 2001.  I'm not sure I could manage 117 mph with the longer lighter club if I was measured today trying to kill one.

[DMoriarty]

If your contention is that the distance spread between top players and average players is too great, the potential distance an average players hits the ball is half of the information you need. Obviously it comforts you to ignore it but that wouldn't be REALISTIC, would it?

I am not sure I need that information, but I'd certainly consider it if you come up with it.   I am willing to consider all the information anyone can come up with, but I don't think it does much good to waste too much time worrying about your blind speculation about how far you think a a 15 handicap might potentially hit it if he/she really caught one on the screws, as compared to how far you think they might have hit it 25 years ago.   It'd be interesting, but I don't think we have the info.

By the way, the main part of my contention is that the elite players and long hitters hit it too far for the architecture.  I don't need to know much about 15 handicaps to support that contention do I?  

[DMoriarty]

As for how the old balls used to fly, here is a page from an patent application (for a Tour Edition ball) from 1990.  The goal was to try and achieve distance close to the Top Flite (TF II) but with more control.  

The top figures are driver figures with a 109 mph swing speed. According to this test, the Top Flite (TF II) was about 7 hards longer than the Titleist Balata, and about 5 yards longer than the Titleist DT 100.  


https://www.google.sc/patents/US5120791?pg=PA9&dq=titleist+%22top+flite%22+balata&hl=en&sa=X&ei=xQUNU4H1Do_roATavYDYCg&ved=0CDIQ6AEwAA

[JESII]

By the way, the main part of my contention is that the elite players and long hitters hit it too far for the architecture.  I don't need to know much about 15 handicaps to support that contention do I?  

We'll, I'm sure they're glad you're looking out for them...

[Bryan Izatt]

Jim,

The reason the pros gained distance with the new ball was the new ball's mitigation of spin produced by their high swing speeds. The slower swingers gained disproportionally less from this mitigation.

Garland,

How much did the new ball mitigate the spin.  Can you ballpark the Balata spin rate and the ProV1 spin rate off the driver.  For guidance, modern optimal spin rates for high speed swings seems to be between 1700 and 3000 rpm depending on the angle of attack.  If you look at David's patent application from 1990 just above, it looks like they were testing at 3200 rpm for the balata ball.

Are you saying that a mitigation of 500 to 1000 rpm for spin leads to significant gains in distance (say 20 yards)?  Or did you have larger spin mitigation in mind?

[DMoriarty]

If you look at David's patent application from 1990 just above, it looks like they were testing at 3200 rpm for the balata ball.

I was wondering about this myself. I suspect that those "Before Test" numbers were calibration numbers.  I sounds like they were using some sort of "iron byron" contraption, and I don't think it very likely they could have perfectly controlled the initial velocity, swing speed, and spin.  Is it possible they wouldn't  have reported spin?

[Garland Bayley]

Jim,

The reason the pros gained distance with the new ball was the new ball's mitigation of spin produced by their high swing speeds. The slower swingers gained disproportionally less from this mitigation.

Garland,

How much did the new ball mitigate the spin.  Can you ballpark the Balata spin rate and the ProV1 spin rate off the driver.  For guidance, modern optimal spin rates for high speed swings seems to be between 1700 and 3000 rpm depending on the angle of attack.  If you look at David's patent application from 1990 just above, it looks like they were testing at 3200 rpm for the balata ball.

Are you saying that a mitigation of 500 to 1000 rpm for spin leads to significant gains in distance (say 20 yards)?  Or did you have larger spin mitigation in mind?

My recollection is balata spinning nearly 4000, but that is info from a long time ago, and highly dependent on many factors.
I think spin mitigation was more than 1000 rpm.

I don't understand the 3232 figure in the table. How could they possible get all balls tested to spin at that rate? And even if they could, why would they choose such a specific number instead of something like 3000?

[Bryan Izatt]

David,

The test protocols are described in the application as follows:

The properties were measured according to the following parameters:

Riehle compression is a measurement of the deformation of a golf ball in inches under a fixed static load of 225 pounds.

Coefficient of restitution (C.O.R.) was measured by firing the resulting golf ball is an air cannon at a velocity of 125 feet per second against a steel plate which is positioned 12 feet from the muzzle of the cannon. The rebound velocity was then measured. The rebound velocity was divided by the forward velocity to give the coefficient of restitution.

Shore hardness was measured in accordance with ASTM Test 2240.

Cut resistance was measured in accordance with the following procedure: A golf ball is fired at 135 feet per second against the leading edge of a pitching wedge, wherein the leading edge radius is 1/32 inch, the loft angle is 51 degrees, the sole radius is 2.5 inches, and the bounce angle is 7 degrees.

The cut resistance of the balls tested herein was evaluated on a scale of 1-5. 5 represents a cut that extends completely through the cover to the core; a 4 represents a cut that does not extend completely through the cover but that does break the surface; a 3 does not break the surface of the cover but does leave a permanent dent; a 2 leaves only a slight crease which is permanent but not as severe as 3; and a 1 represents virtually no visible indentation or damage of any sort.

The spin rate of the golf ball was measured by striking the resulting golf balls with a pitching wedge or 9-iron wherein the club-head speed is about 80 feet per second and the ball is launched at an angle of 26 to 34 degrees with an initial velocity of about 110-115 feet per second. The spin rate was measured by observing the rotation of the ball in flight using stop action Strobe photography.

Initial velocity is the velocity of a golf ball when struck at a hammer speed of 143.8 feet per second in accordance with a test as prescribed by the U.S.G.A.

I suspect that, however they did the test, that they tried to control the test variables so that the distance results would be affected only by the properties of the ball - cover and core.  To me that means they specified the launch parameters - launch angle, ball speed and spin rate - and then tried to achieve those launch conditions for each of the balls being tested.  

Sounds like they used the USGA prescribed hammer protocol to achieve the initial velocity.  If they specified ball speed then the distance results are not about the COR of the core or the cover.  But then they used the USGA prescribed hammer speed to achieve the initial velocity.  If they standardized the hammer speed then they must have different ball speeds.  The results must only be about the aerodynamic properties of the ball and the resulting trajectory if the ball speeds are all the same.  That doesn't make sense to me to the extent that I understand the patent application.  It's making my head hurt.  

In any event, I'm not sure why they would have picked that spin rate.  Maybe it is one they expected to give them the best results for their ball.  

[Bryan Izatt]

Garland,

How much more than 1000?  I have been hitting an old balata in a sim and getting spin rates and they don't very often get up to 4000.  I suspect that elite players in the 1990's could probably control the spin to a lower level than that.  They were using very low lofted drivers in the 6 -8* range, presumably for that purpose.

Have a go at the Flightscope Trajectory Optimizer.  As a mathematician you might find it interesting to fool around with the spin rates while holding other factors constant.  You have to get a pretty large spin differential to effect any kind of significant distance change.  If you hope to dial Bubba or DJ back 10% through spin you're probably going to have to prescribe a minimum spin rate up around 5500 rpms to achieve it.  I don't think that is very practical.

[Garland Bayley]

I just reviewed my Common Sense Clubfitting by Tom Wishon. He says spin rate is a minor factor in the distance a ball goes off the driver. So, I may be the one that is illogical and unmathematical.    

He says it has been over-emphasized in clubfitting, with a range of up to 1000 rpm making little or no difference.

[Doug Siebert]

Garland,

How much more than 1000?  I have been hitting an old balata in a sim and getting spin rates and they don't very often get up to 4000.  I suspect that elite players in the 1990's could probably control the spin to a lower level than that.  They were using very low lofted drivers in the 6 -8* range, presumably for that purpose.

Have a go at the Flightscope Trajectory Optimizer.  As a mathematician you might find it interesting to fool around with the spin rates while holding other factors constant.  You have to get a pretty large spin differential to effect any kind of significant distance change.  If you hope to dial Bubba or DJ back 10% through spin you're probably going to have to prescribe a minimum spin rate up around 5500 rpms to achieve it.  I don't think that is very practical.

You don't need to attack spin only via the ball, when the club is also a factor.  That's why in the idea I've been spitballing any club that is hollow (foam filled counts as hollow - I mean to include driver, fairway woods, and hybrids) has regulations added for how far back from the front of the face and how far above the center of the face the CoG is permitted to be.

I think between that, and specifying a minimum spin rate under certain test conditions, along with a maximum spin rate in a low speed wedge test based on the spin rate measured off the driver (to prevent balls designed to be low spin off the driver while high spin for the short game) a lot of the "work" done in the past 15 years or so to increase driving distance would be undone.

I have no idea exactly how much that would roll back DJ and Bubba.

[DMoriarty]

Bryan, I saw all that, but I think all that applies to Table 4 and 5, but not Table 6.  For example, "the hammer protocol" was with a hammer at 143.8 fps.  For Table 6, they used a golf club head at 160 fps (the USGA test number.)  Before Table 6:

In addition to the above indicated test results, the distance and playability properties of the more preferred formulations of the present invention (i.e. Examples 19 and 22, which are representative of the chemical composition of Spalding's new, longer distance and slightly softer, Tour Edition combinations of Spalding's current Tour Edition Edition as a number of competitive golf balls, and the following performance results were produced.

I don't think they specified ball speed, and I don't think the ball speeds are all the same. I think those are just the numbers for the calibration ball. I think they only specified swing speed, and only reported distance results.   Likewise I don't think they picked that spin rate.

Picture this.  They go out to their iron byron.  Set it to 160 fps. Tee up a a calibration ball.  Hit it.  Record the resulting ball speed (239) and the resulting spin (3232) for calibration purposes (maybe to make sure machine is still working the same as last time.)  Then do the experiment, only recording distance.  

It is a hard read, but that is the best I can figure it.

[Garland Bayley]

...  If you hope to dial Bubba or DJ back 10% through spin you're probably going to have to prescribe a minimum spin rate up around 5500 rpms to achieve it.  I don't think that is very practical.

You are neglecting the amount they will have to dial themselves back to prevent the ball from curving off-line too quickly. That of course is another reason I played the RockFlite in my fit and strong youth.

Getting back to DJ, the people that think he is some kind of super trained tall athlete that therefore can hit the ball a long ways need to figure out why that little dude Jamie Sadlowski can blow it by him by huge distances.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()