News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


David Harshbarger

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: USGA/R&A Distance Insight Project
« Reply #125 on: February 08, 2020, 09:36:47 PM »
The bias comes when there is wind:  if the hole plays into the wind, Tour officials will move the tees up so that the long hitters can still carry the trouble, and the short hitters still can't.


I would guess that has something to do with the results you are highlighting.





From the report: "And while each 1mph increase in tailwind can add a little over 2 yards to a drive, if the wind is against the player it will cost nearly 3 yards per 1 mph of wind speed."
The trouble with modern equipment and distance—and I don't see anyone pointing this out—is that it robs from the player's experience. - Mickey Wright

Erik J. Barzeski

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: USGA/R&A Distance Insight Project
« Reply #126 on: February 08, 2020, 09:39:15 PM »
E -
I did find this. I'll just post, without extra comment or attempts to analyze. (As Tom points out, there are more factors than I realize.)
Thanks. That's a Brandel tweet citing (apparently) Bill Felber data. So while I'm still not inclined to disagree, I'm also not inclined to trust Felber data.  :)

Anyway, this is all a bit of a side point for me. Power tends to take over lots of sports. Not saying it's good or bad, just that's what tends to happen. Which makes sense to me, since "power" and "speed" are some of the basic building blocks of athleticism. The others might be… coordination? Flexibility/agility?

From the report: "And while each 1mph increase in tailwind can add a little over 2 yards to a drive, if the wind is against the player it will cost nearly 3 yards per 1 mph of wind speed."
Yeah that applies to anyone.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aaibYxMd0P8
Erik J. Barzeski @iacas
Author, Lowest Score Wins, Instructor/Coach, and Lifetime Student of the Game.

I generally ignore Rob, Tim, Garland, and Chris.

Peter Pallotta

Re: USGA/R&A Distance Insight Project
« Reply #127 on: February 08, 2020, 09:50:32 PM »
Have to leave it here for tonight, Erik, but while all of this is indeed a bit of a sidebar (and I was mostly just following up on what Ken M brought to mind) your last response to me was very interesting:
I agree that power & speed are basic building blocks of athleticism, in golf and all other sports, and so are the coordination & flexibility that you mention. It's your 'what else?' that caught my attention.
You know and can play the game significantly better than I can. Wouldn't you agree that, at least traditionally, one of the best things about golf is that it had and made room for -- and rewarded -- more 'what elses' than any other sport/athletic endeavour?
What made golf unique was how broad a definition of athleticism the game allowed for.

« Last Edit: February 08, 2020, 09:53:34 PM by Peter Pallotta »

Erik J. Barzeski

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: USGA/R&A Distance Insight Project
« Reply #128 on: February 08, 2020, 09:56:18 PM »
Wouldn't you agree that, at least traditionally, one of the best things about golf is that it had and made room for -- and rewarded -- more 'what elses' than any other sport/athletic endeavour?
I don't know. Like what?

I don't really want an answer, though, because I'm a big fan of staying on topic, and I feel I've done enough to wander that I don't want to keep wandering. As of right now I don't have more to say on this topic. It'll be interesting to see what the next two years brings.

I'm in the wrong place to think I'm in the majority. I'm in a small minority here, and that's fine. At the end of the day, I don't think we should make changes to the game based on a tiny fraction of golfers.
Erik J. Barzeski @iacas
Author, Lowest Score Wins, Instructor/Coach, and Lifetime Student of the Game.

I generally ignore Rob, Tim, Garland, and Chris.

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +2/-1
Re: USGA/R&A Distance Insight Project
« Reply #129 on: February 09, 2020, 08:30:38 AM »
At the end of the day, I don't think we should make changes to the game based on a tiny fraction of golfers.


At the end of the day, I don't think we should make changes to the game great courses based on a tiny fraction of golfers, either.  That's why I don't build "championship " tees on most of my courses.


I'm curious, though, what you think about championship golf.  Should they just play all events on special purpose courses that are 8000 yards long to test the players?  Should championships feature 20-yard fairways and penal rough?   Or should we just let go of the idea of testing the pros and see who can make the most birdies and eagles on any old venue?

Dave Doxey

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: USGA/R&A Distance Insight Project
« Reply #130 on: February 09, 2020, 09:24:35 AM »
At the end of the day, I don't think we should make changes to the game based on a tiny fraction of golfers.


At the end of the day, I don't think we should make changes to the game great courses based on a tiny fraction of golfers, either.  That's why I don't build "championship " tees on most of my courses.


I'm curious, though, what you think about championship golf.  Should they just play all events on special purpose courses that are 8000 yards long to test the players?  Should championships feature 20-yard fairways and penal rough?   Or should we just let go of the idea of testing the pros and see who can make the most birdies and eagles on any old venue?


Leave courses alone. Let the pros score whatever they can on existing courses.


Adding length only helps the long hitters relative to the shot makers.  A recent article quotes Jim Furyk as saying that he could compete on shorter courses, but not on long ones.


I have never understood the reasoning for lengthening courses.   Vanity?  Most golfers already play tees that are too long for their game.

Jon Wiggett

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: USGA/R&A Distance Insight Project
« Reply #131 on: February 09, 2020, 12:03:27 PM »

Why are people going on about long hitters ruining the game and hence the need that the ball be rolled back? Erik is correct that the top players have always been on the whole long hitters. The problem is not that long hitters have an advantage but rather that the distance they hit it is too far. The 330 yards of today needs to be reduced to 275yards which turns a 7500 yard course into one just over 6250 yards.


Shortening the ball is a step forward not backwards.


Jon

Erik J. Barzeski

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: USGA/R&A Distance Insight Project
« Reply #132 on: February 09, 2020, 02:09:11 PM »
I'm curious, though, what you think about championship golf.  Should they just play all events on special purpose courses that are 8000 yards long to test the players?  Should championships feature 20-yard fairways and penal rough?   Or should we just let go of the idea of testing the pros and see who can make the most birdies and eagles on any old venue?
No. Pebble just hosted a U.S. Open and is barely 7000 yards. Royal Melbourne just hosted a great Presidents Cup and is not long. Length only makes it more likely a long player will win. Shorter courses make it possible for more players to win.

So no to 8000 yards. No to 20-yard fairways and penal rough (the latter can have its place). And, yeah, I don't care that much what the final score is. Like I wrote earlier, many here wanna say "par is irrelevant" and many here love "half par holes" and such, so what's wrong with playing a U.S. Open or a PGA on a course that has a few par-3.5s and par-4.5s on it? Who cares if the winning score is -10? Was the Pebble Beach U.S. Open bad because Gary shot -13?
Erik J. Barzeski @iacas
Author, Lowest Score Wins, Instructor/Coach, and Lifetime Student of the Game.

I generally ignore Rob, Tim, Garland, and Chris.

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +2/-1
Re: USGA/R&A Distance Insight Project
« Reply #133 on: February 09, 2020, 03:24:32 PM »
many here wanna say "par is irrelevant" and many here love "half par holes" and such, so what's wrong with playing a U.S. Open or a PGA on a course that has a few par-3.5s and par-4.5s on it? Who cares if the winning score is -10? Was the Pebble Beach U.S. Open bad because Gary shot -13?


Considering the scoring at Medinah #3 last year, I think the winning score is headed toward -20 rather than -10.  I don't really care much about that, but lots of people will make lots of decisions on that basis . . . including the USGA and the R & A, who have been one of the prime movers of lengthening courses for the past 20 years.  [Did they mention their role in that in their report?]


I just go back to what I said earlier:  it's too bad that there are so few opportunities to see great players hit great shots.  Watching Brooks stuff a wedge on a long par-4 is not my idea of a great shot.

SL_Solow

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: USGA/R&A Distance Insight Project
« Reply #134 on: February 09, 2020, 03:40:19 PM »
Tom, you hit it right on the head.  So long as those in control think that par is important we'll see efforts to lengthen courses for important tournaments.  Those who aspire to have their courses resemble those that host majors will want to follow suit, regardless of whether it makes sense.  Despite the efforts to lengthen courses,  tour players will hit a fewer variety of shots than their predecessors and the opportunity to see them exhibit the full range of their abilities will be lessened.  All because the stewards of the game are unwilling or unable to place limits on equipment.  When a long drive was 275 yards, those playing thought it was a long drive.  Whether a shot is long is a perceptual issue based on a power player's outside limits.  There is no magic in a number whether it is 250, 350 or 450.  But it makes a difference regarding the length of the course, the cost to maintain a course and the time needed to play.  it also makes a difference to those manufacturing and narketing equipment and to those who are paid to endorse the equipment.

Erik J. Barzeski

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: USGA/R&A Distance Insight Project
« Reply #135 on: February 09, 2020, 03:54:19 PM »
All because the stewards of the game are unwilling or unable to place limits on equipment.
The equipment has limits, and has had limits for decades. You can debate whether the limits were reasonable (to you), but not that they exist.
Erik J. Barzeski @iacas
Author, Lowest Score Wins, Instructor/Coach, and Lifetime Student of the Game.

I generally ignore Rob, Tim, Garland, and Chris.

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +2/-1
Re: USGA/R&A Distance Insight Project
« Reply #136 on: February 09, 2020, 04:23:43 PM »

The equipment has limits, and has had limits for decades. You can debate whether the limits were reasonable (to you), but not that they exist.


Agreed. 


So why does it bother you so much to discuss adjustments to those reasonable limits?


The way it's presented in the media, it sounds like the governing bodies would be kneecapping equipment "innovation", but they have spent the past 40 years innovating within limitations.




To me the best analogy is auto racing.  "Fans want speed," but engines are restricted in many ways, and the restrictions keep getting dialed back over time.  The trick is you can't tell how fast they are driving, except in relation to one another.  The reason to dial back the speed was to keep drivers [and possibly bystanders] from getting killed . . . for golf the reason would be to keep courses from getting killed.

Erik J. Barzeski

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: USGA/R&A Distance Insight Project
« Reply #137 on: February 09, 2020, 04:36:11 PM »
So why does it bother you so much to discuss adjustments to those reasonable limits?
It doesn't bother me. I just don't think changes are needed.
Erik J. Barzeski @iacas
Author, Lowest Score Wins, Instructor/Coach, and Lifetime Student of the Game.

I generally ignore Rob, Tim, Garland, and Chris.

Duncan Cheslett

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: USGA/R&A Distance Insight Project
« Reply #138 on: February 09, 2020, 04:40:05 PM »
The emphasis on the distances achieved by Tour Pros is misplaced IMO.


Young single handicappers in the club game are now routinely hitting drives of 300 yards. 450 yard holes which average players struggle to reach with a fairway wood are reduced to a wedge approach for the better young players at most clubs, rendering the strategy of many holes obsolete for them but not for the pack behind them. Adding longer tees is simply not an option in most cases and artificial contrivances such as narrowing fairways at 290 yards more often than not compromise the original design intent.


Possibly more worryingly, even relatively poor golfers with youth and strength on their side are now able to launch golf balls 270 yards or so without any great control over the direction they head. On tight 100 year-old courses this is a potential safety issue - particularly if the fairways have become lined with trees obscuring visibility from one fairway to another.


If the ball was restricted to maybe 80% of its current distance it would make little difference to 90% of golfers. We would have maybe a 7 iron shot into a 370 yard green instead of an 8 iron. Or a 3-wood instead of a 5-wood or hybrid. So what?


The long hitters would still hit the ball further than average or short hitters and would still have the advantage of a shorter second or third shot. Golf courses would have to played strategically and skillfully again rather than being overpowered. They would also be safer and more pleasant places with fewer errant balls hurtling across adjacent holes. Ball manufacturers would sell just as many balls - just slightly different ones!


What's not to like?



Erik J. Barzeski

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: USGA/R&A Distance Insight Project
« Reply #139 on: February 09, 2020, 04:49:05 PM »
Young single handicappers in the club game are now routinely hitting drives of 300 yards.
Perhaps not as often as you think.



If the ball was restricted to maybe 80% of its current distance it would make little difference to 90% of golfers.
Oh my.

What's not to like?
You're entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts.

Also, https://www.golfdigest.com/story/how-far-do-average-golfers-really-hit-it-new-distance-data-will-surprise-you
Erik J. Barzeski @iacas
Author, Lowest Score Wins, Instructor/Coach, and Lifetime Student of the Game.

I generally ignore Rob, Tim, Garland, and Chris.

Pete Lavallee

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: USGA/R&A Distance Insight Project
« Reply #140 on: February 09, 2020, 04:58:56 PM »
When you boil it down the essence of great architecture is angles. Playing for the right angle into the green produces a better chance for the player to succeed. Without the angles that Capt. Thomas presented at the 10th at Riviera we would have none of the intrigue it still possess today. A 450 yard par 4 used to provide this, now we need par 4’s in excess of 500 yards to make angles meaningful on courses which can’t achieve the firmness of Royal Melbourne; there are a precious few courses in the World which can present this type of firmness on a regular basis. A wedge to the green eliminates playing the angles. This, to me, is the root of the discussion. Why would you want to negate the architecture of our great courses to keep the profit margins of the manufactures at their current levels?
"...one inoculated with the virus must swing a golf-club or perish."  Robert Hunter

Duncan Cheslett

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: USGA/R&A Distance Insight Project
« Reply #141 on: February 09, 2020, 05:11:36 PM »
Erik,


All your figures and charts prove is that with my 12 handicap, 220 yard drives, and 59 years behind me, I am the epitome of the "average golfer".


All I know is that 20 year-olds are routinely 50-75 yards past me. They may be in the rough, but they're 50-75 yards past me!


That in itself isn't the problem. Most of them can't hit the green with a wedge!  The problem comes from the mindset that driving distance is all-important. It shouldn't be.


Maybe better options than pulling back the ball would be to restrict drivers to the size of current 3-woods and to outlaw tee-pegs...



« Last Edit: February 09, 2020, 05:14:18 PM by Duncan Cheslett »

SL_Solow

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: USGA/R&A Distance Insight Project
« Reply #142 on: February 09, 2020, 05:39:13 PM »
Erik, You are correct.  Limits exist.  But clearly, the discussion is about whether the existing limits achieve reasonable goals and that has been the context all along.  In future discussions I will be more precise.  In the law, we call your argument a distinction without a difference. 

Erik J. Barzeski

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: USGA/R&A Distance Insight Project
« Reply #143 on: February 09, 2020, 06:00:07 PM »
Erik, You are correct.  Limits exist.  But clearly, the discussion is about whether the existing limits achieve reasonable goals and that has been the context all along.  In future discussions I will be more precise.  In the law, we call your argument a distinction without a difference.
And what would the law call an outright lie, like "All because the stewards of the game are unwilling or unable to place limits on equipment." Or do you just get to make up your own facts in court? "Your honor, the USGA and R&A are unwilling or unable to place limits on equipment."

I object.

Duncan, I don't know that your "anecdata" is admissible in court. Nor is any of this, really, since we're not trying to determine any real inherent truth, and there's no one judge or even jury. We're mostly just talking about personal opinions. I'm in the small minority here on GCA re: distance, and that's fine by me, and I've said my bit and will mostly (try to) remain quiet, but ya can't go around saying "they're unwilling to limit equipment." (You didn't say that, Duncan.)
« Last Edit: February 09, 2020, 06:05:13 PM by Erik J. Barzeski »
Erik J. Barzeski @iacas
Author, Lowest Score Wins, Instructor/Coach, and Lifetime Student of the Game.

I generally ignore Rob, Tim, Garland, and Chris.

SL_Solow

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: USGA/R&A Distance Insight Project
« Reply #144 on: February 09, 2020, 06:55:05 PM »
Eric,  This shouldn't devolve to a series of individual attacks although it seems that is where you tend to end up in a number of threads.  Let me make it clear.  I conceded that I misstated to the extent that I suggested that there were no regulations although one might concede that a meaningless or ineffective regulation is tantamount to no regulation at all.  If you would like to engage in a discussion of legal matters, i invite you to enroll in my Professional Responsibility, Trial Advocacy Courses or Bankruptcy Law classes which take up the bulk of my time as I wind down my active practice.  I generally leave golf instruction to PGA pros like you.  But I understand the position that underscores all of your arguments.  You think the game is fine as it is and attribute the increased distance to bigger and better players utilizing better equipment and benefiting from better instruction.  I will concede that fields are deeper and that good instruction is more readily available.  I have also observed the differences in equipment and conditioning.  We simply disagree that the game, at the highest levels, is as interesting as it was when even the best players were required to hit a greater variety of shots largely because the ball did not go as far and straight.  I do not believe that among the very best players, the current crop is more powerful in any meaningful way than prior generations.  Certainly the fact that middle of the road players hit it as long as or longer than the longest players of only 30 or 40 years ago suggests that there is more at work here than mere improvements in technique or conditioning.  Accordingly, classic tests have become less relevant absent "tricked up" conditioning or extreme weather conditions.  A case in point was today's tourney at Pebble where high winds and firm greens made scoring difficult.  It was interesting to see players struggle to hit long irons on holes where they usually hit short or mid irons.  Incidentally, I agree that the new equipment hasn't changed the way regular players interact with classic courses in any material way.  So the discussion is centered not only on how better players are impacted by the regulatory bodies inability to effectively restrict distance (is that better?) but the impact it has on other aspects of the game.  Because, notwithstanding your protestations and counter anecdotal evidence, clubs that want to be viewed as "championship caliber", watch the tours and emulate the courses built or expanded to try and contain the pros.   Ask the architects on this board how many clients voice these sentiments.  Some of our friends like Tom Doak generally resist or are hired by enlightened owners but too many are not and the ensuing impact on costs, speed of play etc. follow.  But please understand, many of us get it.  You don't think there is a problem and you don't think that it is having a significant deleterious impact on architecture.  We just disagree.

Erik J. Barzeski

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: USGA/R&A Distance Insight Project
« Reply #145 on: February 09, 2020, 07:16:01 PM »
Eric,  This shouldn't devolve to a series of individual attacks
You said something false; I pointed it out. That's it. Maybe it's not happened to you, but I've had conversations with people who actually believe there are no "regulations." I try not to assume what people know or don't know.

You think the game is fine as it is and attribute the increased distance to bigger and better players utilizing better equipment and benefiting from better instruction.
Yes, close enough. Equipment is definitely better than the 90s, and when people attempt to summarize my position for me, they often downplay how much weight I give better equipment.

You don't think there is a problem and you don't think that it is having a significant deleterious impact on architecture. We just disagree.
Also not quite, but close enough. The main difference being that I don't think how 0.01% of the world's golfers play golf should matter much at all.

But yeah, we disagree. I'm not in favor of any change at this point. If some club somewhere wants to spend their money, that's their prerogative. It's a free market, and IMO, 95% of golfers are perfectly content with 6500 yards or less.
« Last Edit: February 09, 2020, 07:23:40 PM by Erik J. Barzeski »
Erik J. Barzeski @iacas
Author, Lowest Score Wins, Instructor/Coach, and Lifetime Student of the Game.

I generally ignore Rob, Tim, Garland, and Chris.

Bryan Izatt

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: USGA/R&A Distance Insight Project
« Reply #146 on: February 09, 2020, 08:50:32 PM »



From reading the report and a few of the studies in the library my takeaway from it all is that distance is a case of the tail (elite male golfers aka the Tours, and wanna-be "championship" courses) wagging the dog (the rest of us non-elite golfer and non-championship courses. 


I commend the USGA and R&A for doing quite extensive research and study of the distance issue.  It provides a pretty good context for an informed discussion about whether or what to do about distance.  Everybody should read the report and the accompanying reports in the Library  her.


https://digitalarchives.usga.org/app/api/request/index.html#!/contents/9e1e8737c4734c2d962b1d8025c9a29d/name/Distance%20Insights%20Library


For context, I am an aged golfer who drives it 200 or slightly more yards and who has lost around 20 yards over the last 20 years (the Pro-v1 era).  I don't need longer golf courses; I need shorter courses.  According to the USGA I should be playing 5000 yard courses to have the best playing experience.  At most courses that means playing the forward tees (from whence the ego gets in the way).  If the ball were rolled back (or perhaps reset would be a better term) I'll need tees that are shorter still to enjoy the game. 


I don't really care if the ball is reset or not.  I'm not invested in whether tour players win at par or at -20 or -30.  I'm also not invested in whether classic courses are so silly as to lengthen their courses to challenge the elite few. If score relative to par is a problem, just do away with par 5's altogether.  Change them all to par 4'5 for elite competitions.  If you want to see some long second shots keep the former par 5's at 550 or 575 yards.


The report does provide some interesting insights through a survey into what the various stakeholder groups think about the distance issue.  Only 17% think it's a major issue with slightly less than 50% thinking it is a major or minor issue.  The other slightly more than 50% think distance is not an issue or don't know.  This is an interesting dilemma for the USGA - the stakeholders are more or less evenly split, so which way do they go? 

Following are two excerpts from the report.

"6.4.1 “Is distance a problem, a threat, or an opportunity?”

When asked by SMS about broad topics of importance across the game of golf, many stakeholders were more likely to identify areas aside from distance as threats to the game. Pace of play, availability of short format venues, and inclusivity / diversity were mentioned at a higher rate than distance. Most respondents when prompted, however, did have feelings about the topic of distance. Figure 67 reflects respective stakeholder groups’ feelings on whether distance is “a problem” in golf.

Across all stakeholder groups, for those respondents who believe that distance is a major or minor problem, tee shots with the driver were most noted. Many stakeholders did not specify distance as “a problem” at the present time, but thought that, if unchecked, it would likely become a significant problem over the next ten years. Those respondents who believe that distance is “a problem” are most likely to think it is a problem for the elite / professional game as shown in Figure 68. It is notable that distance was depicted as “a problem” both for shots that “go too far” OR shots that do not “go far enough” as each respondent was left to interpret “distance” through their own criteria without the benefit of qualifiers or additional definition of terms."

"Golf course construction experts are generally very aware of the issue of distance in golf and – by
and large – have a negative opinion of how increasing distance is affecting the game. Many in this
group share sentiment that opposes the prospect of golf courses increasing in length, unless it is
specifically to accommodate championship events.

Opinions on whether distance should be looked upon as a threat or an opportunity were almost
equally divided as shown in Figure 69. The variation between stakeholder groups is notable.
Equipment manufacturers, as an example, were most likely to see distance (presumably, increased
distance) as an opportunity, while golf course architects were most likely to see distance (again,
presumably, increased distance) as a threat. "














James Brown

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: USGA/R&A Distance Insight Project
« Reply #147 on: February 09, 2020, 09:28:34 PM »
It seems to me that one solution to this distance debate would be to dramatically increase the firmness of tour courses, especially the greens.  Royal Melbourne showed that the pros have to deal with strategic issueat a certain level of great GCA and firmness.  Firm is more fun for all. 

Bryan Izatt

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: USGA/R&A Distance Insight Project
« Reply #148 on: February 09, 2020, 09:29:36 PM »

I found the report R20 "Effect of Equipment on Distance - Golf Balls" interesting.  It has a lot of information that would have informed many of the debates we've had over the years about the ball and distance.

One analysis that's provided looks at the various ways of reducing the distance a ball travels - weight, size, spin, dimples, drag coefficient, and lift coefficient.  As I expected, weight and size are reasonably straightforward methods.  Spin looks real complicated.

Some interesting (to me) tidbits.

When they looked at the different ways of reducing distance -  weight, size, spin etc - they also tried to see the impact on LPGA players and amateur men in a couple of handicap groups.   They reduced the tour average by about 30 yards from 293 to about 263 (about a 10% reduction).

The impact on the 11-20 handicap group was a reduction of around 15 yards from an average of 211 yards to 196 yards - about a 7% reduction. So, for those that see a 10% rollback at the top end not affecting them .......  looks like you'll be affected too.

One other tidbit I thought was interesting was that they did a test where they tumbled balls for a few hours to simulate the effect of wear on ball performance.  Seems that the ball goes higher and shorter when it's worn.  No wonder the PGA guys change their balls frequently. 

They also tested some wound balls against current balls. Surprisingly the launch speeds were pretty close, but the wound balls spun 500 to 1100 rpm's more.  Their aerodynamic performance was different too.  The two wound balls were from different manufacturers and performed and spun quite differently.  Too bad that Moriarty isn't still around, he could claim victory about the slope of the swing speed vs distance line is flatter with the wound balls vs the modern ball.

Rob Marshall

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: USGA/R&A Distance Insight Project
« Reply #149 on: February 09, 2020, 09:45:06 PM »
“You said something false; I pointed it out. That's it. Maybe it's not happened to you,

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black...
« Last Edit: February 09, 2020, 10:10:50 PM by Rob Marshall »
If life gives you limes, make margaritas.” Jimmy Buffett

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back