Is it not a big deal Dustin Johnson hit 3w/6i on the 18th green at PB?

[Garland Bayley]

...
But 20 years ago I did not have the option of a "Tour" ball that was playable by slow-swinging amateurs,...

Of course you did, it was the Titleist Red.
And every time you cut it, the rules allowed you to substitute another.

[Garland Bayley]

Brent,

Your numbers sound awful high to me, but even if we accept them they pale in comparison to the gain experienced by elite players.

...

And, remember he is comparing beginner golfer numbers to world traveler golfer numbers.

[DMoriarty]

David,

What do you think about the fact that I'm no longer than 15 or 20 years ago?

Sounds like old balls.  Whatever the reason, I don't think your cornfield test is indicative the results of most elite players.

Why do you think you arent longer?  Surely you aren't suggesting that there have been no gains among elite players, are you?

Will you take a shot at answering my bolded question above?  Thanks.

[DMoriarty]

Don't worry Brent, no one is after your precious G25.  Or at least I'm not.  If you've been reading this you know that.

And to again clarify, I don't give a flip about the likes of Dustin Johnson, except for the impact the technological changes have had on the architecture.  It sounds to me like you don't care about that as long as you can keep playing the latest and greatest equipment. To each his own.

[Patrick_Mucci]

[

Pat

Are you saying that two clubs swung with the same speed, where one is lighter then the other by 20% will lead to the same distance?

Padraig,

Let us know which persimmon driver weighed 20 % less than the others ?
Or 15 %
Or even 10 %
I played with just about every brand of driver made in the 50's, 60's and 70's and don't ever recall their being a detectible difference in club head weight, with the possible exception of the H&B Power Bilt Shallow Faced driver.

But, to your question, if we're talking about Persimmon woods, with one being lighter than the other, but, both swung at the same speed, throughout the entire swing, they'll both go the same approximate distance

The balls were Titleist Tour Balata 90 from 2000.

By then balls had already come a long way.
I would have liked to have seen what would have happened with balls from 1960, 1970, 1980 and 1990.
I think you'd find a considerable difference

Paul Hurrion is a thorough researcher, doesn't make claims without evidence. As a comparison the longest hitter in our club in the 30's, 40's and 50's was a golfer called Jimmy Bruen. He drove the first hole approx 370 yards slightly uphill on quite a number of occasions back then. Now the two longest hitters in the club both who can achieve 128mph clubhead speed each have only driven it once in the past few years. I think it can be reasonable to say that Jimmy Bruen had club head speeds in the 120's range. Why not Nicklaus as well?

How come I never read about Jimmy Bruen ?

I was friendly with Evan (Big Cat) Williams who was a fairly long hitter.
I'm pretty sure that he was longer than Nicklaus.

Evan was 6'5", a good athlete, a former basketball player.
He was in great condition and very strong.
He used a longer driver that was D-6.
Most of us who tried to swing his driver couldn't attain the speeds he attained, because the club was too heavy for us.
In addition, he used an X-Shaft, which didn't reward those of lessor strength

Driving a green is irrelevant if you don't know the conditions.
Firm, fast, downwind.
In the late 60's I played with fellows who hit the ball a long way, but, they hit sweeping hooks that ran forever due to conditions.
I drove 360 yard greens, but, under incredibly favorable conditions.
CARRY is the critical factor not ground distance.

[Garland Bayley]

Is it not eye opening to you that half (or less) of the Titleist guys on Tour switched to the X?

In your chart above, how much yardage do you think it's fair to attribute to optimization? It's greater than 0, right?

My recollection is that there were two discontinuous jumps in tour driving distance, in 2001, and in 2003. The jump in 2001 was attributed to the massive adoption of new ball technology. The jump in 2003 was attributed to the coming of age of technical equipment that allowed the players to find the right set up to fully take advantage of the new ball technology.

My recollection is that choosing a ProV1 vs a ProV1x was a primarily matter of taste on short game performance. However, it did allow a few players to get extra distance if that fit their tastes.

December 2003, State of the Game program on the Golf Channel.

"The biggest reason for distance increases in the last two or three years, not the last ten, starts with the Tour player finding out how to maximize launch conditions" Taylor Made CEO Mark King

He continues, "Higher launch, less spin, speed is the same, the ball goes 20 yards farther". ... "That isn't the face [of the club], that isn't the length of the shaft. That isn't how strong the guy is."

[Garland Bayley]

... You think the old balls flew just as far as the new balls, but where is your study backing that up?   Where are the patent applications indicating that the Top Flite carried over 276 yards with 109 mph swing speed?  Where are the applications indicating the balls had a total distance of over 300 yards at a 109 mph swing?  I've looked at dozens of patent applications trying to find such examples and haven't found anything close.  If anything, the example I posted is on the high end of distances.  

If you come up with anything I'd be glad to consider it.  But as it is, it seems that this legend that a 1980's era Top Flite flew just as far as a 2013 Pro V1x is unsupported.  

"Using a persimmon driver and striking the ball at 109 miles per hour, Iron Byron made contact at a fixed launch angle, sending drives out onto the USGA's big front lawn. It was a tough machine to adjust, so the launch angle stayed the same even though testers knew that say, a rock-like Top Flite, launched at a 19-degree angle, would easily exceed the USGA's Overall Distance Standard (ODS)."

Geoff Schakelford, The Future of Golf reviewed by among others David Moriarty.

[Garland Bayley]

Frank Thomas foresaw the likelihood that ODS could be breached. "Thomas led the creation of the Indoor Test Range (ITR) in the late '90s that addressed the problem of varying launch angles and inconsistent testing conditions. The new test would retire Iron Byron and actually made it possible to cap the maximum overall distance the ball flew, no matter who was at the wheel of the car and what engine was driving their ball."

ITR was referred to as "optimization" and was shown to equipment companies, thereby informing them how to beat the ODS, and when the USGA announced plans to put it in place allowed the equipment companies to fight back. It was doomed when Frank Thomas left "to pursue other interests", and was replaced by Dick Rugge a former Taylor Made exec.

The above information is also from The Future of Golf.

Geoff writes that after dumping the new test the USGA gave no explanation for doing so. Recently I read an article where a USGA official said they did not change, because they would cause bankruptcies. My thinking on this is that Top Flite had made its entire business based on the balls that would be suddenly nonconforming, and that includes their new Strata which brought spin to the Top Flite line of balls. Therefore, there is a good chance they would have bankrupt Top Flite.

[DMoriarty]

Garland, when Frank Thomas came up with the original ODS test, he first experimented with various available balls trying to see how far they flew when hit at the swing speed of a reasonably long professional with equipment that was standard at that time.  While "optimization" hadn't really taken off at that time, I think it fair to say that this was his best effort to discover maximum distances under normal conditions at that particular swing speed. I don't know if it was realistic at that point in time to launch balls (even hard, low spin balls) at 19 degrees without sacrificing ball speed and distance.  What would they have used, a four wood?  

As for Geoff's statement about what testers "knew" about 19 degree launch angles, I don't know the time frame to which he referred, the equipment available at the time, or the factual basis of the statement.

If the old Top Flites flew as far as the longest modern balls under similar launch conditions, I'd like to see proof.  From what I can gather from old patent applications, Frank Thomas's statements, and other sources, this notion is more myth than fact.

[Garland Bayley]

David,

All I can say is that the Top Flites flew tremendous distances when I was 20-21. I have continually gotten shorter off the tee ever since. Even the ProV1, when introduced 30 years later was significantly shorter than the old Top Flites.

[Doug Siebert]

David,

All I can say is that the Top Flites flew tremendous distances when I was 20-21. I have continually gotten shorter off the tee ever since. Even the ProV1, when introduced 30 years later was significantly shorter than the old Top Flites.

How far were you carrying them, and how far did you carry the V1/V1x in the early half of this decade?

Are you claiming that 70s(?) Top Flite was the equal of the Pro V1 in 2001?  Or the V1x in 2003?  Or today's V1/V1x?  Or was it better than any ball from the 00s?  I mean, if you never hit further, so that even whatever benefit you were getting from longer, lighter clubs with a higher COR still resulted in less carry for you than you were getting back then, either that ball was much better than anything available today or you must have lost a hell of a lot of swing speed since then.

I know I was never swinging as hard or was as strong as I was back then, but when I start playing the Pro V1 I hit to places I'd never hit before (under equivalent conditions) and when I switched to the V1x in 2003 I hit further yet.  I didn't play Top Flites as my day to day ball, but I certainly played some rounds with them - especially early or late in the season when I was still rusty or worried about losing my ball in the leaves.  Seems like every time I played in a scramble I'd win a dozen balls for long drive or something, and they always seemed to give out Top Flite or Pinnacle, had to use them up

[JESII]

What is your evidence that the technological advancements have lead to similar distance increases on a well struck drive hit by a golfer swinging at 80-85 mph as compared to a well struck drive hit by an elite player swinging at 120-125 mph?

Ever hear of Steve Quintavalla?

[DMoriarty]

Yes.  But I've never heard of him saying anything close to that.

[JESII]

Wonderful!

Let me summarize for you...

In an experiment to test the theory some had floated that there was a disproportionate benefit afforded those with higher swing speeds, the better players. Specifically very high swing speed PGA Tour level players.

He used 5 distinct balls on the basis of their use on the PGA Tour but he did not identify the balls.

He used a calibration ball that was two piece Surlyn covered.

He used a mechanical golfer swinging a USGA conformance driver per the USGA ODS at 90, 100, 110, 120 and 125 miles per hour to see the differences in performance across that spectrum.

In summary:
1 - The increase from 90mph to 125mph is a 39% increase in speed yet it produced only a 37% increase in ball speed.
2 - Each of the golf balls COR was measured at 90, 109 and 130mph. The average COR at 90mph was 0.842, at 109mph it dropped to 0.825 and at 130mph dropped further to 0.801. This is a substantial reduction in energy transfer as swing speed goes up.
3 - He measured the incremental distance increase in 10 yard segments. If your swing speed increased from 90mph to 100mph your average distance increase was about 31 yards - a swing increase from 100mph to 110mph produced about 29 yard increase in distance - from 110mph to 120 the increase was down to 23 yards gained.
4 - He also measured "Optimum" launch conditions which I took to mean he tweaked the conditions for each ball until it's individual maximum distance was found. For the 90mph swingers, they stood to gain 19 yards while the 125mph swingers only gained 7.5 yards.


This is no longer Quintavalla, this is my opinion:

The biggest difference between equipment 20 years ago and today, when considering and comparing better/higher swing speed players and slower speeds is the decision to play what amounts to a hard ball. I know you're holding out hope that the old Rock Flite's didn't go any further than a balata, but you're alone on that island. Even Shackelford said so, although I'm taking Garland's word for it. Haven't found the book yet. Hell, even your Tour Edition patent application said so.

[JESII]

So I think the lesson from this thread is...if you swing at 80mph there's an unbelievable incentive to get it up to 90mph...you're likely to pick up 100 yards distance...

[DMoriarty]

Jim,

I am familiar with the 2006 Quintavalla USGA paper. It doesn't even begin to address the question I have been asking. The USGA paper compared how five modern tour balls performed across a range of swing speeds from 90 to 125. At no point does the study examine (or even mention) the performance characteristics of prior technology.

As I have explained in my post 440 and elsewhere, examining the distance characteristics of a modern tour tour balls at different swing speeds tells us nothing about how much the new technology has benefited various players at different swing speeds as compared to with the prior state-of-the-art technology.   You have claimed that the slow swinging players have benefited just as much as the fast swinging players, but you have offered absolutely no facts to back up your claims.    Care to try again?  

I know you're holding out hope that the old Rock Flite's didn't go any further than a balata, but you're alone on that island.

Come on, Jim.  You are making things up.  This isn't what I said, and you know it.   I have been comparing the old Top Flites to the new Pro V1x type balls, not to balatas.  I have hypothesized that the old Top Flites did not fly as far as the new Pro V1x type balls.  I have always acknowledged that at high swing speeds the old Top Flites flew further than the old balatas.

[At low swing speeds, say 80 mph, I don't know whether the Top Flites flew significantly further than the old balatas.  I suspect that they didn't, but I don't really know for sure.]

[JESII]

David,

As you well know, your use of the term "state-of-the-art technology" is designed to avoid the reality. Either the Pinnacle or the Balata was state-of-the-art, not both. Care to choose one?

You can't because your hypothesis is based on ignoring the facts laid out rather well in your Tour Edition patent application...that the two predominant types of balls (wound balata and solid core surlyn cover) in that era had tremendous advantages and disadvantages to different types of players resulting in an almost (but not quite) universal selection of one type ball for one class of golfer and the other type ball for another class of golfer. The release of the ProV1 and similar solid core/soft cover balls eliminated the distinction. Other than cost, there's no reason a high handicap wouldn't benefit from the new balls as compared to the current "Rock Flites".

Let me try to piece together what would have to happen for Quintavalla's study to be as worthless as you claim...

[Garland Bayley]

David,

All I can say is that the Top Flites flew tremendous distances when I was 20-21. I have continually gotten shorter off the tee ever since. Even the ProV1, when introduced 30 years later was significantly shorter than the old Top Flites.

How far were you carrying them, and how far did you carry the V1/V1x in the early half of this decade?

Are you claiming that 70s(?) Top Flite was the equal of the Pro V1 in 2001?  Or the V1x in 2003?  Or today's V1/V1x?  ...

I have no concrete data on how far I carried them. But, I will explain the basis of my estimation. I played a course that had high power lines crossing the fairway on a slightly uphill hole from 260 to 270 paces from the tee. I worked as a surveying assistant, and the surveyor measured my pacing as 90 paces per 100 yards, so when he wanted to take a reading 100 ft. distant, he had me walk 30 paces. When playing the hole with the power lines I would regularly have my ball knocked down by striking one of the lines. Therefore, I conclude that I regularly carried the ball more than 279 yards in the air.

By the time the Pro V1 came out I had been an aging, clinically obese desk jockey for 25 years that seldom played golf. Therefore, it is not reasonable to make a comparison, even if I could. I have never bought a Pro V1, so I would never have had a pristine ball to conduct tests with anyway.

[Thomas Dai]

This is not about how far Dustin Johnson hits the ball but about what a wonderful, smart, skilful shot he played with I think, a shut face GW/SW, from about 35 yds short of I believe was the 4th hole at Doral a little while ago. I was wondering beforehand how he'd play the shot, expecting it to be up in the air. I didn't believe he had it in him to bounce it in low, land it on the upslope and then spin and trickle it forward to about 3 ft. Landed it on a sixpence. Full marks to him for attempting the shot and even more marks for then bringing it off successfully. Well done DJ. Not just power, touch and brain as well.
atb

[Garland Bayley]

Garland, when Frank Thomas came up with the original ODS test, he first experimented with various available balls trying to see how far they flew when hit at the swing speed of a reasonably long professional with equipment that was standard at that time.  While "optimization" hadn't really taken off at that time, I think it fair to say that this was his best effort to discover maximum distances under normal conditions at that particular swing speed. I don't know if it was realistic at that point in time to launch balls (even hard, low spin balls) at 19 degrees without sacrificing ball speed and distance.  What would they have used, a four wood?  

As for Geoff's statement about what testers "knew" about 19 degree launch angles, I don't know the time frame to which he referred, the equipment available at the time, or the factual basis of the statement.

If the old Top Flites flew as far as the longest modern balls under similar launch conditions, I'd like to see proof.  From what I can gather from old patent applications, Frank Thomas's statements, and other sources, this notion is more myth than fact.

Geoff may have somehow gotten the 19 degrees wrong. Here are Frank's current launch angles for "Maximum Distance".

"A Guideline: Optimum Driver Launch Conditions for Maximum Distance*
 
Driver Launch Conditions
 
Head Speed: Approximate Launch Conditions
 
120 mph: 12 degrees and 2,200 rpm
100 mph: 13 degrees and 2,400 rpm"

The time frame that testers "knew" you could optimize launch angle for Rock Flites and get extreme distance would have been before the one ball condition rule was made. Geoff's book says it was a bandaid to prevent players from playing Rock Flites on par 5s and balatas on par 3s.

Usually I find you to be quite logical David. However, please explain to me how a Pro V1x when launched with optimal spin and optimal angle can exceed the distance a hard Top Flite has when launched with optimal spin and optimal angle. Both will have the same ball speed as they will both sit just within the initial velocity requirement.

[Doug Siebert]

The time frame that testers "knew" you could optimize launch angle for Rock Flites and get extreme distance would have been before the one ball condition rule was made. Geoff's book says it was a bandaid to prevent players from playing Rock Flites on par 5s and balatas on par 3s.

Usually I find you to be quite logical David. However, please explain to me how a Pro V1x when launched with optimal spin and optimal angle can exceed the distance a hard Top Flite has when launched with optimal spin and optimal angle. Both will have the same ball speed as they will both sit just within the initial velocity requirement.

I always heard the one ball rule was done because players were hitting hard balls on long par 3s playing into wind, because it would keep the ball from ballooning up.  Maybe they used them more widely, but using them on par 5s would be pretty dumb because they were so bad around the greens a guy with the skill of a tour pro would be greatly limited in getting it up and down, or on his pitch (if he wasn't able to reach the green but got himself closer)

I think the thing that is getting people hung up here are that some people seem to be assuming that the Top Flite of 1974 or 1984 went as far as the Top Flite of 2014.  I'll grant that today's Top Flite and today's Pro V1x undoubtedly have very similar distance characteristics.  If one is longer than the other it is by a handful of yards.  But I have seen nothing to indicate that the Top Flite from 30 or 40 years ago has anything in common with today's Top Flite, aside from the name and two piece construction (at least I just checked the web site and the Top Flite XL is two piece)

I'm not sure on what basis one can conclude that the Top Flite has no gotten longer over the years as better materials have been found for both the core and the cover, and the ability to engineer and test aerodynamics of a golf ball have improved.

[DMoriarty]

Jim,
I have no qualms about choosing a "state of the art" ball from the prior era. Balata covered wound balls were used by the vast majority of top players, for good reason. The surlyn covered balls flew farther at high swing speeds, but they were nonetheless considered essentially unusable for better players.  More specifically, they were hard to control and did not perform as well on short shots and around the green, and they did not feel as good.  The surlyn covered balls appealed to the less discerning masses because they were cheap and durable, but they were by no means state of the art regarding overall performance characteristics for the reasons mentioned above. Some argue that the old surlyn covered balls also flew farther than wound balatas even at slow swing speeds, but I have my doubts.  I'd like to see the proof that a Top Flite carried significantly farther than a balata at an 80 mph swing speed. In short, while balata may have been much more expensive and much less durable, they were still "state of the art" in terms of performance characteristics.

As for the Tour Edition patent application, it says, "The softer balata covers, although exhibiting enhanced playability properties, lack the durability necessary for repetitive play."  That pretty much answers why the balata was still the "state of the art" performance-wise. The actual example shows that the Top Flite and the Wound Titleist DT were only slightly longer than the Titleist Balata; specifically, at a 109 mph swing speed, the Top Flite II was only about 8 yards longer and the DT was only about 2 yards longer than the balata.   The application says NOTHING about the performance of any of the balls at slow swing speeds.  

Other than cost, there's no reason a high handicap wouldn't benefit from the new balls as compared to the current "Rock Flites".

This statement has me confused.  Isn't it your position that the old Rock Flites were "state of the art" for these golfers, and they flew just as far as any ball on the market today?  If so, what is this supposed benefit of either the new ProV1's or the current Top Flite to these golfers?  Purely enhanced feel?   If the high handicappers didn't need enhanced feel then, why would they need it now?  Could it be that playability mattered even then, and that except for price and durability, the old Top Flite's weren't all that great for anyone except for Garland?

Let me try to piece together what would have to happen for Quintavalla's study to be as worthless as you claim...

I wish you'd quit misrepresenting my positions and putting words into my mouth.  I found the study to be very interesting and helpful, especially regarding the shape of the distance curve and COR at high swing speeds.  But the study doesn't even begin to attempt to compare the performance results with the prior technology. You must know that by this point, so I am a bit confused why you wasted your time summarizing Quintavalla a few posts above when we both know it doesn't address what is at issue here.  You haven't picked up a ghostwriter recently, have you?  

[DMoriarty]

Usually I find you to be quite logical David. However, please explain to me how a Pro V1x when launched with optimal spin and optimal angle can exceed the distance a hard Top Flite has when launched with optimal spin and optimal angle. Both will have the same ball speed as they will both sit just within the initial velocity requirement.

Interesting question, Garland.  But before I try to explain, perhaps we first can explore your underlying logic.

What if I tell you that all the better balls - including the wound balatas - were sitting just within the initial velocity requirement?

If the balata and the Top Flite were both sitting just within the initial velocity requirement, then why do you suppose the Top Flite was so much longer?

[Padraig Dooley]

How come I never read about Jimmy Bruen ?

Pat, here's something on Jimmy Bruen.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9_qRG1HRh4o

[Paul_Turner]

Looking at the tour data: the Pro Vi breed of golf ball is about 8-10 yards longer than the balata/wound ball, so comparable to the difference between balata and Top Flite in the study (for that range of swing speeds at least).