[Bryan Izatt]

David,

Compression from the bottom end up would probably be an easier sell to the masses, but ti sort of defeats the purpose.  Engineering a ball to deliver compression at the top end would be a lot harder than just setting the spec.  I really wish we had the old Titleist Balata slope and the Pinnacle of the time.  I'm still not convinced that the slopes are all that different.  And if they are a bit different would their effect be lost in the noise of the variability of our distances from swing to swing. 

I wonder how much architectural difference it would really make if the rang of drives was 150 to 250 yards rather than 150 to 300 yards.  Is a hundred yard difference easier to deal with than 150 yard difference.  I'm always struck when I play in Scotland at how little difference there is between the medal tees, the yellow tees and the forward tees.  Seems to me  that golf course architecture originally was one size fits all and let the player and his/her shortcomings deal with it.  So, long players could fly impediments, short players couldn't get there and median players ran into more impediments.  Or, some other combination based on what the architect was trying to achieve. Could one course be all things to all players no matter what compression of the distances were to occur.

[Bryan Izatt]

David,

Re the R&A stuff, do you attribute the relative lack of improvement in distance the rank amateurs achieved to inherent shortcomings in the I&B for slow swingers or to their relative incompetence in being able to take advantage of the improvements in the I&B?

Did you look at the last graphic of the club face.  Do you think that it is in any way similar to the pattern you'd see on a PGAT club face?

Do you think any of the participants in the R&A data have optimized their swing or ball or club to maximize distance?  We know that the PGAT guys have.

Do you think that the ProV1x should have been 20 yards longer for players at all speeds regardless of their abilities to strike the ball?

I think you know what my answers to these questions would be.

[Pat Burke]

I've played the ProV1, and in particular, the 2009 version when I could get them for years.
I am pretty low spin, so even though I hit the "X" further with my driver, the ability to
hit my irons the correct distance was not there.

The current Titleist balls though, I play the "X".  The Titleist rep at Champions qualifying last year
told me I would be able to spin it a bit more.  The change of the "X", probably has a lot to do with the higher number of "X" players?

I just started playing a little more, and have spent 2 days at Callaway, trying to find the best combinations.
Settled on Apex Pro irons.  A half club stronger than my Adams irons, with a little more spin.
I tried the new Bertha Driver, but could not spin it enough.
Settled on the XHot2. My ball speed was solid, but I got my spin rates a little higher, which gave me, for my
swing characteristics, a pretty maxed out combination of distance, and trajectory control (at home, a 260 carry)
Picked up about 4 yards of carry.  Could be a little better with the new Callaway ball.  Just started testing them today.

The difference in what is IDEAL is really amazing.  In '97 I hit low, hard draws, now try to basically hit high knuckleballs.

[DMoriarty]

Here is a link to a very interesting 2011 trackman study done by a a club pro comparing a Balata, a Professional, an early ProV1, and a recent 2011 ProV1.  (And also an early ProV1x, although without all the numbers.)  Swing speed of the golfer, 110 mph.  

http://www.andrewricegolf.com/tag/tour-balata/

More complete stats are available at the link but here are the top line numbers.  

Balata            261.6 yds
Professional    262.1 yds
Pro V1-392     286.4 yds
Pro V1           298.4 yds
ProV1x -392   307.3 yds

This golfer hit the old model ProV1x about 45 yards beyond the Balata and the Professional. It is not apples to apples, but this beats the heck out of the 3 yard gain the average golfers picked up in that R&A study.

The most surprising number to me is the big gain in the newer ProV1 over the older one.   This might support my hunch that over the years the ProV1 has become more like the ProV1x.
____________________________________________________________

As for your questions . . .

Of course average players are incompetent, inconsistent, etc. Of course they are all over the club face.  That is why they suck.  It is also part of the reason the new technology (including optimization) doesn't do them much good.  Swing speed is the other part.  Both parts have increased the gap between good and bad, and both are technology driven.

As for optimization, optimization isn't going to help them because they stink at consistently striking the ball. You need consistency to optimize.   Also they lack the physical tools to take advantage of things like low spin balls, and advanced shafts, etc.

No I don't think hacks should have been able to hit the ProV1x 20 yards longer.  That'd be horrible!  I don't think anyone should be able to hit the ProV1x, period.  

Average players have always been horrible and they likely always will be. But as horrible as they are, for about a century the proportionality of the game (and therefore the architecture) was in balance between long and short.  Now it isn't.   It doesn't matter why they suck, what matters is that 1) the overall distance does not render courses obsolete, and 2) some sort of workable proportionality is preserved between long and short.

[DMoriarty]

Pat,

Thanks for your perspective.  Very interesting.   

[JESII]

It amazes me every time this conversation comes along how the rollback crowd fully exempts the owners, operators and developers for their role in the expansion of golf course length and overall size. It's never the people that actually fund and build and renovate/expand these courses...it has to be the USGA because they let Titleist put a balata cover on a Pinnacle.

I'll take the best players in the game to Gulph Mills GC, or LuLu, or Applebrook and it'll be entertaining as hell. And guess what, we can all play those courses the next day and have a great time as well.

Question, if people are lengthening their courses regardless of the likelihood of Dustin Johnson showing up, what's to stop them from lengthening it if Dustin Johnson all of the sudden hit the ball 10% shorter due to a roll back? Based on stories I've heard, I'm betting Davis Love could have hit a 6 iron onto #18 at Pebble in 1985...what about that? Here in the Philly area, Huntingdon Valley hosted a good amateur tournament for years. In the early 90's a guy by the name of Ed Bolton showed up and hit the ball further than anyone I've seen since...bar none. What about him?

Develop and manage the courses for your clientele's enjoyment and you'll have a successful operation.

[JESII]

I read this quote recently and thought it hit the nail square on the head.

"It's getting more and more difficult to present a hole that defends par against PGA Tour Pros, so at one point you have to ask, is the effort worth it ?"


How do you guys feel about it?

[Doug Siebert]

It amazes me every time this conversation comes along how the rollback crowd fully exempts the owners, operators and developers for their role in the expansion of golf course length and overall size. It's never the people that actually fund and build and renovate/expand these courses...it has to be the USGA because they let Titleist put a balata cover on a Pinnacle.

I'll take the best players in the game to Gulph Mills GC, or LuLu, or Applebrook and it'll be entertaining as hell. And guess what, we can all play those courses the next day and have a great time as well.

Question, if people are lengthening their courses regardless of the likelihood of Dustin Johnson showing up, what's to stop them from lengthening it if Dustin Johnson all of the sudden hit the ball 10% shorter due to a roll back? Based on stories I've heard, I'm betting Davis Love could have hit a 6 iron onto #18 at Pebble in 1985...what about that? Here in the Philly area, Huntingdon Valley hosted a good amateur tournament for years. In the early 90's a guy by the name of Ed Bolton showed up and hit the ball further than anyone I've seen since...bar none. What about him?

Develop and manage the courses for your clientele's enjoyment and you'll have a successful operation.

Multiple people have pointed out the role of owners/operators/developers in this.  But how do you suggest holding them accountable?  They can rightly say they're just responding to changes in the game.  Whether people on GCA think they should respond by lengthening their courses is another matter - its their course, they have the right to do with it as they please.  If you own your own course, you can have the back tees at 6500 yards and no one has the right to complain.  If Donald Trump owns his own course and has the back tees at 8000 yards no one has the right to complain (well, we have the right to complain, he has the right not to listen)

I don't think anyone is directly blaming the USGA for all the courses getting lengthened since they aren't directly involved with that (other than maybe US Open courses)  The USGA is like the doctor who writes prescriptions for Percocet he knows is being abused.  Sure, you blame the addict, you don't hold the suppliers/enablers blameless.

[JESII]

But how do you suggest holding them accountable? 

By not playing their golf courses.

[DMoriarty]

Jim,  I don't think anyone is "fully exempts the owners, operators, and developers."  Above Patrick pointed out that it was the owners/developers who were demanding longer courses.  I agreed with him.

But blaming them isn't going to change their behavior.  They are acting in what they perceive to be their best interests.  They want to own, operate, and build high quality courses, and historically the courses that have been considered the best were of "Championship" length and at least potentially challenged the best players. Likewise, the tour players are acting in their own perceived best interests, as are the equipment manufacturers.  But the USGA is supposed to be different.  The USGA is supposed to be acting "for the good of the game." They make the rules that are supposed to keep the game in balance.  They (and the R&A) are the only ones in a position to fix what is broken.

As for the likes of Dustin Johnson, Davis Love, and Ed Bolton, there have always been long bombers and there always will be, and that is part of the charm of the game.  But while the title of this thread suggests otherwise, this problem isn't limited to one or two outliers.  All golfers with high swing speeds hit it much farther than they ever did in 20 years ago.  According to Bryan, with today's equipment the tour average swing speed is 112 mph, and with today's technology that is more than fast enough to routinely drive the ball over three hundred yards.

And even with these outliers, what was freakishly long in the early 90's is pretty ho hum now.  Davis Love usually averaged right around 280 off the tee, and one year (1992) he averaged as low as 273 yards off the tee.  Last year the shortest driving average on tour was over 270.  In 2005 (at the age of 41) he averaged 305 yards off the tee.  Surely you understand that it was much easier to fit the 1990s version of Davis Love on a golf course than it is to fit a modern version like Dustin Johnson, or even the senior version like Davis Love!  
_________________________________________________

As for Patrick's quote, I don't think it is "worth it" to try to defend par against the PGA tour pros.

That said, the architecture suffers when so much of the game is reduced to driver-wedge for the big hitters. Variety is essential to quality architecture, but the equipment is making it difficult or impossible for architects to build courses which provide for a variety of shots for longer hitters.  And I don't think this just applies to Dustin Johnson.

[Patrick_Mucci]

But how do you suggest holding them accountable? 

By not playing their golf courses.

Jim,

Are you stating that you'll never play Pine Valley and Merion again ?

Are you advising all of us to reject playing those courses when invited  ?

[JESII]

It was probably a poor choice of words...but you bring up good examples.

My contention is that golf courses/clubs, in the quest for recognition are developing their way out of financial viability with the big, wide, non-personal approach. I believe golf is at its healthiest when it presents an intimate yet social experience. Pine Valley and Merion both excel at pleasing their membership and its guests. They're not the problem with golf...and neither is Dustin Johnson hitting 18 at Pebble Beach with a 6 iron.

My reaction to Doug would have been better said in general terms because each clubs situation is different. A big difference I see to blame for these misguided attempts is the focus on profitability; either through for-profit ownership or by an over supply of courses and a lack of membership demand in many regions...including here in the suburbs of Philadelphia.

[Doug Siebert]

So hold them accountable by refusing to play the courses.  Unless it is a course/club you like and don't want to quit playing it!

[Doug Siebert]

My reaction to Doug would have been better said in general terms because each clubs situation is different. A big difference I see to blame for these misguided attempts is the focus on profitability; either through for-profit ownership or by an over supply of courses and a lack of membership demand in many regions...including here in the suburbs of Philadelphia.

How is a focus on profitability a bad thing?  If they're making money and they want to make even more money, that's one thing, but the situation you have when there's an "over supply of courses and lack of membership demand" points to a focus on reducing the bleeding, rather than increasing profitability.  It is easy to be customer focused and tradition oriented when you don't have to come up with money to make the shortfall when the monthly bills exceed the income.

Even a course that doesn't change a thing may suffer from those that do.  Those that "go big" cost more to operate, and take money out of the pockets of golfers who play them, potentially leaving less to go around for when those golfers play courses that "remain pure".  Not to mention how every year we're bombarded with advertising stating how much better this year's drivers are.  I'm sure a lot of golfers get suckered into chasing that, and dropping $500 at the start of the year takes a bite out of anyone's golf budget (at least for those who have a yearly golf-related budget for themselves or have such a budget enforced by SWMBO)

[Jim Sherma]

I remember playing in a tournament or two with Ed Bolton. It's a name I had not thought about in decades. He was real long.

It amazes me every time this conversation comes along how the rollback crowd fully exempts the owners, operators and developers for their role in the expansion of golf course length and overall size. It's never the people that actually fund and build and renovate/expand these courses...it has to be the USGA because they let Titleist put a balata cover on a Pinnacle.

I'll take the best players in the game to Gulph Mills GC, or LuLu, or Applebrook and it'll be entertaining as hell. And guess what, we can all play those courses the next day and have a great time as well.

Question, if people are lengthening their courses regardless of the likelihood of Dustin Johnson showing up, what's to stop them from lengthening it if Dustin Johnson all of the sudden hit the ball 10% shorter due to a roll back? Based on stories I've heard, I'm betting Davis Love could have hit a 6 iron onto #18 at Pebble in 1985...what about that? Here in the Philly area, Huntingdon Valley hosted a good amateur tournament for years. In the early 90's a guy by the name of Ed Bolton showed up and hit the ball further than anyone I've seen since...bar none. What about him?

Develop and manage the courses for your clientele's enjoyment and you'll have a successful operation.

[DMoriarty]

Jim,  I don't get your rationalization regarding Pine Valley and Merion.   Those clubs are well beyond having to worry about surviving, and I don't think making money is their object. Yet you don't blame them, only everyone else? Don't you think some of the others are just following suit?  If you are so adamant that it is the fault of the courses/clubs, how can you give them a pass?

Here is a question for you.  I assume you remember how various levels of golfers interacted with the architecture in the early 1990's or before.   Do you think that this interaction was more interesting now or then?  Take holes like No. 16 at Merion, or No. 18 or No. 6 at Pine Valley . . . were they more interesting then or now? 

[Patrick_Mucci]

It was probably a poor choice of words...but you bring up good examples.

That's why Ran pays me the big bucks

My contention is that golf courses/clubs, in the quest for recognition are developing their way out of financial viability with the big, wide, non-personal approach.

But, that's contradictory.
You don't increase profitability by spending capital on lengthening your course and you don't improve profibility by increasing operating expenses by having to maintain "more" golf course.

I look at it a little differently.
You have to provide a "field of play" commensurate with the ability of the golfers who play your course.
And, as Shivas used to say, "chics dig the long ball".

You have to respond to what the trend,  produced by hi-tech and as seen on TV is.

I believe golf is at its healthiest when it presents an intimate yet social experience. Pine Valley and Merion both excel at pleasing their membership and its guests.

I completely agree.
But, then you'll run into those who claim that that environment doesn't grow the game

They're not the problem with golf...and neither is Dustin Johnson hitting 18 at Pebble Beach with a 6 iron.

They're as complicit as every other club that's lengthened it's golf course

My reaction to Doug would have been better said in general terms because each clubs situation is different. A big difference I see to blame for these misguided attempts is the focus on profitability; either through for-profit ownership or by an over supply of courses and a lack of membership demand in many regions...including here in the suburbs of Philadelphia.

If a club is run inefficiently, it will cost more to belong.
Clubs must run efficiently, hence, the profit motive or break even motive isn't a bad thing

[Bryan Izatt]

David,

The Anfrew Rice "test" is interesting, but just raises more questions in my mind.

Here are the complete stats.

Titleist Tour Balata 100

    Total Distance 261.6 yds
    Carry 224.7 yds
    Clubhead Speed 110.1 mph
    Ball Speed 160.7 mph
    Smash Factor 1.46
    Attack Angle -0.4 degrees
    Spin Loft 9.0 degrees
    Launch Angle 6.5 degrees
    Spin 2789 rpm



Titleist Professional 90

    Total Distance 262.1 yds
    Carry 251.9 yds
    Clubhead Speed 110.6 mph
    Ball Speed 161.4 mph
    Smash Factor 1.45
    Attack Angle -1.1 degrees
    Spin Loft 6.9 degrees
    Launch Angle 6.5 degrees
    Spin 2915 rpm



Titleist Pro V1 - 392

    Total Distance 286.4 yds
    Carry 251.9 yds
    Clubhead Speed 110.1 mph
    Ball Speed 164.7 mph
    Smash Factor 1.50
    Attack Angle -3.0 degrees
    Spin Loft 10.8 degrees
    Launch Angle 6.5 degrees
    Spin 2739 rpm



New Titleist Pro V1

    Total Distance 298.4 yds
    Carry 271.1 yds
    Clubhead Speed 110.8 mph
    Ball Speed 167.2 mph
    Smash Factor 1.51
    Attack Angle -3.1 degrees
    Spin Loft 11.7 degrees
    Launch Angle 7. degrees
    Spin 2850 rpm


Interesting that the player's AoA varied from -3* to -.4*.  Quite a variation.

All the launch angles are sub-optimally low.

The spin rate on the Balata ball is the lowest.    All spin regulation fans take note.

The initial ball speeds are similar and could account for some part of the distance differential, but not all.  I suspect that part of the difference in ball speed is the result of the COR of the Balata and Professional degrading with age.

In the footnotes he reports that the Professional and Balata balls have lost 7 -10% of their wight compared to the ProV's.  The elastic windings probably have dehydrated over time.  Lighter balls definitely go less far.  

If you're rolling back the ball, an easy way to do it is to regulate a lighter ball.  Make them like floater balls used on aqua ranges.


Net result - although interesting, I'm not sure how much this tells us.  Perhaps it's not possible to do this test given the probable degradation of the Balata and Professional balls over time.

[Bryan Izatt]

Patrick,

You have to provide a "field of play" commensurate with the ability of the golfers who play your course.

This sounds like a truism.  But all courses I know of have members/golfers who range widely in ability (and length). 

My home course was built as a testing "championship" course.  Things have turned out somewhat differently than the original owners intended and we now have, at most, a handful of members who have the ability to play the 7500 yard tips.  Heck, even the Monday qualifier for the Canadian Open doesn't use all our back tees.

Isn't the crux of the problem that it is impossible to design a golf course where all members of the course will interact with the "architecture" in the same way, regardless of a rolled back ball or not?  and, regardless of the use of multiple tees?

Or, do you have in mind a movement to homogenous memberships where all have similar length and abilities?

[JESII]

The weight and the angle of attack stood out to me also.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

You have to provide a "field of play" commensurate with the ability of the golfers who play your course.

This sounds like a truism. 
But all courses I know of have members/golfers who range widely in ability (and length). 

When the distance spectrum is widened that presents a greater dilemma for the architect, thus that objective has become far more difficult

My home course was built as a testing "championship" course.  Things have turned out somewhat differently than the original owners intended and we now have, at most, a handful of members who have the ability to play the 7500 yard tips.  Heck, even the Monday qualifier for the Canadian Open doesn't use all our back tees.

Isn't the crux of the problem that it is impossible to design a golf course where all members of the course will interact with the "architecture" in the same way,

When the distance spectrum is widened that presents a greater dilemma for the architect

regardless of a rolled back ball or not? 

That's where we disagree.
As the distance spectrum is compressed, more golfers interface with the architecture as intended.
The "roll back" would institute that compression.

and, regardless of the use of multiple tees?

Multiple tees are a practical approach, but as the distance spectrum expands more tees become necessary.
Initially, ALL golfers teed off on the next hole by teeing their ball up within one club length of the cup on the hole just completed.
It took close to 100 years to change that rule............ To two (2) club lengths.

The creation of more tees followed the broadening of the spectrum as more elements or sub-sets of golfers were catered to.

Today, it's not uncommon to see five (5) or more sets of tees

Or, do you have in mind a movement to homogenous memberships where all have similar length and abilities?

No, but perhaps reversing the trend and heading back toward the one tee principle might not be a bad idea.

While interfacing with the architecture is a primary objective, I think that the creation of multiple tees is often a concession to ego and the need to make a par.

In truth, multiple tees are a form of dumbing down the game versus the one tee concept.

Since multiple tees are unlikely to vanish and since a roll back is unlikely, the architect will be unreasonably challenged as the distance spectrum expands.

[Doug Siebert]

In the footnotes he reports that the Professional and Balata balls have lost 7 -10% of their wight compared to the ProV's.  The elastic windings probably have dehydrated over time.  Lighter balls definitely go less far.  

I think not only the weight by the reason you suggest for the reduced weight makes the test results invalid.  Anytime I go through some old boxes and encounter something held together with a rubber band that's 10+ years old it has to be handled very carefully to keep from snapping it.  It sounds like each ball was hit only once - I wonder how much the numbers would be different between the same ball on the first and second hit, since the windings probably snapped in a thousand places at impact

[DMoriarty]

Bryan and Jim,  This guy's driving distance for the old ProV1x-392 was 307 yards even with his supposedly inadequate attack angle.  Imagine how far he'd hit with an optimized swing.   His attack angle and laungh angle were apparently low, but they were pretty consistent across all tests (we don't have the breakdown for the ProV1x but the author indicates that the numbers were similar) so surely they tell us something.

Bryan,  I know you are really focused on launch angle and angle of attack (and think they might be a holy grail for your own swing.)   You may be right.  It may be that the next big gain for big hitters may involve squeezing more efficiency out of these "angles."   But as technology exists now, my guess is there is a reason why pgatour pros (and other big hitters) are not optimizing these numbers. Could be that they'd have to give up something (ball speed? optimal spin rate?) to get the angles up to optimum.  

As for the weight of the older balls, I noticed that as well.  Interesting that the measure of the newer balls (46 grams) is slightly above the legal limit.  Must be a rounded number, and the manufacturers must be manufacturing right at the limit.  I wonder if with the older balls there was less precision in the manufacturing process, so that some larger room for error was left in the process.  (I have read that this was the case with the old initial velocity limit.)  Even if there was some more wiggle room built in for manufacturing inconsistencies, I doubt it would account for the noted difference.  

I agree that this casts doubt on the actual specific measures (a gain of about 45 yards) but note that while the magnitude may be off, the general indication of a large difference between the balata and the new balls is consistent other indications.  Take a look at longer hitters who played through the switch over from the wound balls to these new balls, and you see significant distance gains that don't quite match 45 yards, but they are closer to 45 than they are zero.   It is very difficult or impossible to unwind the exact reason for the various gains, but I really don't think that at this point there could be any doubt that the ball played a major roll in the increased distances.   Do either of you disagree?  

[JESII]

I do not disagree.

The ability to better match your swing to a ball - shaft - head combination is the key.

I think it was your R&A article that made the case most clearly, the new balls have diminishing returns for better players, but poor players have far less ability to actually exploit the benefits.

[Garland Bayley]

... the new balls have diminishing returns for better players ...

All balls have always had diminishing returns for better players. The new ball has been engineered to significantly reduce the diminishing returns for better players over the ball they were previously using. Therefore, the better players have gained the most from the new ball.

It used to be that the average Joe could watch the better players and relate his game to theirs. Perhaps this helped keep the average Joes in the game. Now the average Joe sees that he plays like a girl. Perhaps he now thinks he would rather engage in more manly sports like sliding a skateboard down a stair railing.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()