[Bryan Izatt]

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.


Garland,

I'm out of my depth on plastics, but a quick search suggests that Surlyn is an ionomer.

Surlyn® Ionomer

DuPont™ Surlyn® resins are ionically cross-linked thermoplastics based upon ethylene copolymerised with carboxyl groups and a metal ion to give a unique material. They deliver impact toughness, abrasion resistance and chemical resistance in a variety of consumer and industrial products, or use in other plastics as a modifier.

 

Also typically used as a food contact or seal layer in flexible packaging, DuPont™ Surlyn® packaging resins are optimised for efficient blown film and extrusion coating. Choose from a wide variety of proven grades, to meet specific packaging needs. Overall Surlyn® resins give design versatility, crystal-like transparency and chemical resistance.

Do you trust the writer more now?   

Yes, I know that Titleist didn't get to market first with the 3 piece solid core ball.  I have no idea who conceptualized it first.

[Bryan Izatt]

Bryan, I believe it is mostly due to technology.  I focus on the ball because the ball has played a very large role and also it seems easiest to fix.

Re the R&A study, you have the same info I do.

I agree it's mostly about the technology. 

I have seen no credible data that informs the statement that the ball played "a very large roll". I don't know what range you have in mind for "very large".  I have no idea about the contribution of the ball and each of the other factors I listed above are. 

Sure, the ball is probably the easiest to fix by fooling around with the weight, diameter and/or COR of the ball and establishing new ODS standards.  I "think" trying to fix the ball through regulating spin is not doable.  But, I think the likelihood of there being a regulated distance fix is very small.

BTW, I think you stated earlier that optimizing launch conditions could result in the loss of ball speed.  Why do you think that?  Just curious.

 

[DMoriarty]

I think I wrote "a large role," didn't I?  Although "roll" might have worked too, I guess.

I think pgatour data indicating large jumps in individual player distances which directly corresponds to the date they switched balls is pretty good evidence that the ball played a large role.  See again the chart of those who switched to the ProV1x, for example.  

[JESII]

My problem with tests like this is that guys like Chad Campbell have optimized their swings for the newer equipment, and the new ball is certainly optimized for the launch characteristics of new equipment.  So how much is it really worth? 

As is the case with any single player, whether it's Chad Campbell, Andrew Rice or David and Lynn out in a cornfield. Every person has their swing optimized for something. It sounded like yours was optimized for the X before you ever hit it.

[JESII]

Jim

The 2011 ProV1 was 12 yards longer than the ProV1-392 from about a decade before.  And the ProV1x-392 was another 9 yards longer than than that!  

Has Titleist contacted you yet? I think they'd love to hear their ProV1 is 20 yards longer than the original ProV1's...have a big number in mind David, I love a happy ending!

[Garland Bayley]

I think I wrote "a large role," didn't I?  Although "roll" might have worked too, I guess.

I think pgatour data indicating large jumps in individual player distances which directly corresponds to the date they switched balls is pretty good evidence that the ball played a large role.  See again the chart of those who switched to the ProV1x, for example.  

At one point Tom Paul reported on here that the USGA told him the new balls went 25 yards farther than the old balls.
This was quite a awhile after our original discussions here.

[Garland Bayley]

Bryan,

Thanks for straightening me out on surlyn/ionomer.

We know that TopFlite claimed the first patents on the three piece, and Callaway sued Titleist over it, eventually winning in trial but later having it overturned. Others on here tell me Bridgestone actually had the first three piece.

[JESII]

I think I wrote "a large role," didn't I?  Although "roll" might have worked too, I guess.

I think pgatour data indicating large jumps in individual player distances which directly corresponds to the date they switched balls is pretty good evidence that the ball played a large role.  See again the chart of those who switched to the ProV1x, for example.  

At one point Tom Paul reported on here that the USGA told him the new balls went 25 yards farther than the old balls.
This was quite a awhile after our original discussions here.

Across the board?

[Garland Bayley]

I think I wrote "a large role," didn't I?  Although "roll" might have worked too, I guess.

I think pgatour data indicating large jumps in individual player distances which directly corresponds to the date they switched balls is pretty good evidence that the ball played a large role.  See again the chart of those who switched to the ProV1x, for example.  

At one point Tom Paul reported on here that the USGA told him the new balls went 25 yards farther than the old balls.
This was quite a awhile after our original discussions here.

Across the board?

I didn't pursue it in depth with him. By that time, I wasn't much interesting in engaging him.

[DMoriarty]

Has Titleist contacted you yet? I think they'd love to hear their ProV1 is 20 yards longer than the original ProV1's...have a big number in mind David, I love a happy ending!

As they say, Jim, your results may vary.

But even so I think you misread my post.  For this golfer the early generation ProV1x-392 was about 20 yards longer than the same generation ProV1-392.  That number is consistent with the gains seen by some of the tour professionals in 2003 when they switched to the ProV1x. Titleist was aware of the difference.

As for the early model ProV1-392 versus the more recent ProV1, for this golfer the difference was about 12 yards. I guess this number could be inflated by the age of the older ball, or the difference could be attributable to this guy's particular swing. Or it could be the ball has been greatly improved for a narrow range of golfers. Whatever the explanation, I think it fair to say that ProV1 has changed over the years, so I don't think it would be at all surprising to Titleist that a particular golfer hits the newer version about a dozen yards beyond where he hits the older version.

Anyway my point was  that these balls have different distance characteristics. Not every ball could possibly have identical distance characteristics as the old rock hard Pinnacle.  At some point we've got to let that legend go.  No one but Garland is longing for that old rock hard ball.
_______________________________________________________________

Bryan,

BTW, I think you stated earlier that optimizing launch conditions could result in the loss of ball speed.  Why do you think that?  Just curious.

Bryan, I think I said that trying to optimize by adjusting one particular component may adversely impact other components.  For and exaggerated example, in theory one could increase club head speed trying to swing really hard and by switching to a 50 inch shaft, but ultimately that might have an adverse impact the quality of strike and the efficiency of the energy transfer to the ball.   You keep talking about launch angle, but changing one's swing (or equipment) to achieve a certain launch angle might have a detrimental impact on other components, such as ball velocity.  They are all interrelated.

[JESII]

But David, all that means is that the number of optimal drives is less frequent...it doesn't mean the top line doesn't go up. In my opinion you need to acknowledge this because the of it's impact on the average golfer...specifically, your view that the average golfer hasn't benefited from today's equipment.

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...

Do I have an experiment in a cornfield yet, nope...sorry!

[DMoriarty]

I'm sorry Jim. You've lost me.  Specifically, to what are you referring when you say "all that means?"

[JMEvensky]

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...

Agree completely but I'm curious which technology improvements contribute the most.

43",125 gram steel shaft versus 45",60 gram graphite shaft

300 cc persimmon driver versus 460 cc titanium

balata versus Pro V1

Pure speculation,but I'd guess the better the player,the higher the percentage attributable to the ball.The worse the player,the higher the percentage attributable to the head and shaft.

Anybody know?

[JESII]

Your comments that immediately preceded mine...that's how a typical conversation works, no? I address what was just said, or quote a passage you wrote earlier in the thread and address that.

Here's your passage to Bryan...

Bryan, I think I said that trying to optimize by adjusting one particular component may adversely impact other components.  For and exaggerated example, in theory one could increase club head speed trying to swing really hard and by switching to a 50 inch shaft, but ultimately that might have an adverse impact the quality of strike and the efficiency of the energy transfer to the ball.   You keep talking about launch angle, but changing one's swing (or equipment) to achieve a certain launch angle might have a detrimental impact on other components, such as ball velocity.  They are all interrelated.

[JESII]

Jeff,

I don't think anyone has ever pulled apart all of the pieces...who would want to? And have the resources to...

No cornfields here!!!

[Peter Pallotta]

Jeff  - that's what's interesting. If I'm understanding Jim right, he's suggesting that the disproportionately larger distance gain (achieved by the pros over the amateurs) is caused neither by the ball itself nor by the head-shaft itself (as both ball and head-shaft have in isolation increased distances for both average golfer and pro alike) but by the new understanding of the critical relationship between launch angles and spin rates (i.e. the ball in relationship with the head-shaft), which relationship the pros have taken much greater advantage of than the amateurs.

Peter

Jim - sorry, saw your post at the last second and decided to post anyway.   

[JMEvensky]

Jeff,

I don't think anyone has ever pulled apart all of the pieces...who would want to? And have the resources to...

No cornfields here!!!

I'd bet a large stack that Titleist knows,smaller stacks on TMAG and Callaway.

[JESII]

P

Yes, mostly...all I'd add is that the new ball seems to have been the tipping point for the other technologies to benefit from.

In hindsight, didn't it seem like every piece of equipment (balls, heads (loft and size), shafts, even tees) used to hit a drive changed significantly over a short time frame? Maybe your hindsight is better than mine...

[JMEvensky]

Jeff  - that's what's interesting. If I'm understanding Jim right, he's suggesting that the disproportionately larger distance gain (achieved by the pros over the amateurs) is caused neither by the ball itself nor by the head-shaft itself (as both ball and head-shaft have in isolation increased distances for both average golfer and pro alike) but by the new understanding of the critical relationship between launch angles and spin rates (i.e. the ball in relationship with the head-shaft), which relationship the pros have taken much greater advantage of than the amateurs.

Peter

Jim - sorry, saw your post at the last second and decided to post anyway.   

Peter,for the most part,I think I agree with Jim--if he's saying that elite players have optimized EVERYTHING,including the way everything works together.Going further,if Jim is saying that for elite players,trying to determine which piece of the puzzle is most important is ultimately a fool's errand,I agree with that also.

However,I don't think the same is true for non-elite players.I think improvements to the ball are the least helpful piece of the puzzle.

All the above pure speculation on my part--waiting for Bryan I. to post several dozen graphs to prove/disprove.

[JESII]

Jeff,

I don't think anyone has ever pulled apart all of the pieces...who would want to? And have the resources to...

No cornfields here!!!

I'd bet a large stack that Titleist knows,smaller stacks on TMAG and Callaway.

You may be right...wonder what it means that results are published.

[DMoriarty]

Jim, I don't see much of any relation between my response to Bryan and your follow up. I was talking to Bryan about the optimization process. In contrast, you seem to be talking about the inconsistencies of the average player, in contrast to the consistencies of the elite player.  

I don't accept your premise that an average golfer has gained as much as the elite player as a result of all this new technology (including optimization) even when the average player gets lucky and everything lines up just right.   But ultimately I don't think it matters much either way.  So lets assume for argument that you are correct.  

Even if I do accept your premise, so what?  Optimization and equipment specialization are technological advances that specifically benefit the elite player precisely because the average player sucks.   Your seem to be saying, Well, if the average player wasn't so damn bad, he could take advantage of this stuff and hit it better.   No shit. That is the point. He cannot because he is bad.

Is your solution that bad players should just play better?  If so, thanks much.

When trying to determine if the game is out of balance, why would we want to focus on an occasional fluke of nature where a crappy golfer catches lightning in a bottle?   This year on tour already hundreds of players have hit drives over 350 yards, and some have hit it close to 400.   So would it be reasonable to base this conversation on the observation that tour players are capable of hitting it 390 yard drives?   Or is it more reasonable to look at how far they generally drive the ball?  

[Bryan Izatt]

Jeff,

No more charts or graphs for at least a few minutes.   


All,

Anybody have any idea how close TopFlite, Pinnacle, ProV1 and Tour Balata came to the ODS standard in 1999 - 2000.  Just curious.  If under the ODS test conditions they all came in just under the distance limit at the test swing speed, what would that tell us.


David,

Is the converse of your bolded statement above that your solution would be to pull back the elite player by disproportionally rolling back the ball?

[JMEvensky]

Jeff,

No more charts or graphs for at least a few minutes.   

When did you become such a slacker?

[DMoriarty]

Bryan, 

I read somewhere it has long been a relatively easy matter to get the balls right up to the initial velocity limit, but that as of circa mid-1980's no ball had yet come very close to the distance limit.   So my guess is they all came in just under the initial velocity test but not the distance test.

[Garland Bayley]

...
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.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()