[Paul_Turner]

Brent

Yes you could be right, the SLE it may well be near constant.  The "Aeson" driver likely has the max SLE allowed.  I'd like to see data for the SLE contribution to the COR over a range of speeds.  I have heard claims that the SLE only benefits the stronger players, but never seen any data to back it up.  There are claims that weaker players don't benefit from the SLE because they don't hit the sweet spot often, which is where the club face has been optimized for SLE.  Which seems to make sense, but again, I don't have any data as to how the SLE varies away from the sweet spot.

My understanding of the SLE is that the metal face of the club can snap back into shape with less losses than the ball.  Which make sense if you think about the differences in the material... atomic bonds in a metal vs polymers.  For a given impact speed, the ball will deform less with an SLE driver vs a rigid driver.  But in terms of the COR of the collision, this is more than compensated for by the club face deforming and snapping back.  

If you were building a ball for absolute max COR you want the ball to deform as little as possible to limit losses: roughly, the stresses in the ball are inversely proportional to the amount of deformation.  So v small deformations will put huge stresses on the internal bonds...a stiff,strong, material like Ti in the club face can handle this, it will deform less and not shatter.  

If there was no COR limit, I think you would see a greater push towards the hollow metal ball.  A ball that recover its shape most efficiently.

[redanman]

I don't know if anyone has already said this and I surely am not going to muddle through three pages, but


it's not that the ball goes disproportionally further for faster swing speeds but that

the ball will definitely go further the more solidly it is struck.

Professional and top amateur players not only have faster clubhead speeds but also hit the ball more solidly more often, thus more distance gain.  

There is an association with higher clubhead speeds and more distancegain, but not a cause and effect relationship, the two coincidentally exist.

[Walt Cutshall]

So if fast swinger's don't get a special benefit from the new, harder balls, I guess they're saying that slower swinging golfers will get no additional benefit from softer balls (like the Noodle). And to take it further, slow swingers should do just as well with a Pro V1x.

It seems to me that you can make a harder ball that can only be compressed efficiently with a harder swing. Isn't that part of the concept behind slower balls (i.e. that there is an optimum ball "hardness" for a given swing speed)?

[Paul_Turner]

If anyone has the time.  It would be useful to ignore specific players and plot the distribution curve (normal/bell, I assume) of driving distance for years 1995,2000,2005.

See if the spread in the distribution stretches in range:  indicating a tech advantage to the strongest players.  Or if the distribution is the same and the curves just shift to higher values.  Get a standard deviation value and compare means and medians.

From a quick look, the distributions look similar.  

[Brent Hutto]

Walt,

They only looked at "Tour" balls similar to the ProV1x and they only looked at center-of-clubface normal (perpendicular) impact in the range of 90mph-125mph. So the results of the study published yesterday don't say anything at all about what happens at slow clubhead speeds or with softer golf balls.

[Garland Bayley]

How it is unfair for a player who is able to swing faster than me to hit it farther than me escapes me.  That's just the way golf is.
...

It is fair for a player who swings faster to hit it farther. It is unfair if his advantage is increased by artificial technological tricks.

Are you suggesting that there are still some "artificial technological tricks" that lead to disproportionate gains?  If so, what are they?

Same thing I have been pointing out repeatedly. The spin of the ball has been altered unnaturally. If it gives further advantage to high swing players, then it is unfair.

[Garland Bayley]

For those of you who want a comparison with a wound balata ball, where would you propose to get some to do the test with?  Does anybody still manufacture them?  Any that have been lying around for 10 years would certainly have lost some of their distance due to loosening of the windings and deterioration of the rubber.  I doubt that it is possible to effectively construct the test you're suggesting.

Are you suggesting that Titleist couldn't produce 100 brand new Tour Balatas by tomorrow if asked?  I'm sure new wound balls could be created with ease.


Jeff F.

I asked them that and they said all the equipment necessary has been disposed of and they have no capability to produce the balls. I don't know how honest they were being with me. I am skeptical, because they can produced possible rolled back balls for USGA testing when asked.

[Brent Hutto]

The spin of the ball has been altered unnaturally. If it gives further advantage to high swing players, then it is unfair.

Garland,

You keep using that pejorative "unnatural" in a context that makes it seem like a synonym for "unfair". There's nothing natural at all about a golf ball covered in balata-rubber or in a urethane elastomer. The modern golf balls spin very differently from old wound ones and that's a fact. It is not a comparison of natural vs. unnatural, it's a comparison between one kind of spin and another kind of spin.

The manufacturers knew that elite players would benefit from a ball that spun differently than the ball they were using. One day they discovered how to build balls whose spin was more suited to the games of those elite players and that's what the elite players use now. Just like somewhere along the line it was discovered that a rubber grip works better than leather so now we all use rubber grips. Should we make Tour players go back to leather grips because leather is more "natural"?

Your working definition of "unfair" seems to be anything that performs better in Vijay Singh's golf game than it does in yours or mine. So perhaps you want to outlaw stiff shafts, metalwoods with open face angles, low-lofted drivers and three-irons. Those work great with Vijay's swing but don't work worth a darn with mine. Why not go the whole way and make him use my limp-shafted 14-degree driver, hybrid long irons and two-piece low-compression golf ball? It would seem to meet your concept of fairness since he wouldn't be able to choose equipment that is suited to his swing.

[Garland Bayley]

The spin of the ball has been altered unnaturally. If it gives further advantage to high swing players, then it is unfair.

You keep using that pejorative "unnatural" in a context that makes it seem like a synonym for "unfair". There's nothing natural at all about a golf ball covered in balata-rubber or in a urethane elastomer. The modern golf balls spin very differently from old wound ones and that's a fact. It is not a comparison of natural vs. unnatural, it's a comparison between one kind of spin and another kind of spin.

Hit a round rock with a driver, a 3 iron, a 6 iron, a 9 iron, and a SW. Measure the spin and plot the spin vs the club face angle. I believe you will get a straight line.
Do the same with the balata wound ball. I believe you will get a straight line.
Do the same with a Pro V1. I doubt you will get anything close to a straight line.
Not perjorative, just the facts.

[Brent Hutto]

Hit a round rock with a driver, a 3 iron, a 6 iron, a 9 iron, and a SW. Measure the spin and plot the spin vs the club face angle. I believe you will get a straight line.
Do the same with the balata wound ball. I believe you will get a straight line.
Do the same with a Pro V1. I doubt you will get anything close to a straight line.
Not perjorative, just the facts.

As long as you're talking about an impact that significantly compresses the ball I would not expect to see a straight line relationship for any type of golf ball, certainly not for a wound balata one. Do you know of anywhere to see a published plot of backsping vs. clubface angle? Is it somewhere in Cochran and Stobbs?

[EDIT] And BTW, the clubhead speed at impact for a sand wedge, iron and driver are not nearly the same. Spin is as much a function of clubhead speed as of clubface angle.

[Garland Bayley]

As long as you're talking about an impact that significantly compresses the ball I would not expect to see a straight line relationship for any type of golf ball, certainly not for a wound balata one. Do you know of anywhere to see a published plot of backsping vs. clubface angle? Is it somewhere in Cochran and Stobbs?

[EDIT] And BTW, the clubhead speed at impact for a sand wedge, iron and driver are not nearly the same. Spin is as much a function of clubhead speed as of clubface angle.

In conducting the experiment, we would control the variables. The same club head speed would be used for all.
In my knowledge, the manufacturers of golf balls did nothing to alter natural spin characteristics of golf balls until the Strata, and then later the Pro V1. I have to wonder what possible reason you would expect the wound balata ball  not to exhibit the linear relationship I outlined. The reason I prefaced each statement with I believe, is because I have no knowledge of such a study. The reason I came to these conclusions is that wound balatas spun faster off all club faces then rockflite style balls did off the same clubfaces. Currently Pro V1s spin about the same as rockflite style balls do off drivers, whereas they spin much much faster than rockflite style balls do off short irons.

[Paul_Turner]

For a given club head speed, there is a fair amount of variation of spin between the balls tested in the report.  Compare C and E.  About a 15% difference at the max club head speed; but both balls have much the same distance.  The dimple depth/pattern may be used to compensate. i.e. the lower spin rate may have deeperor more dimples to give similar lift/drag.

[JohnV]

Garland, why is an intelligent use of the knowledge of physics and aerodynamics unnatural?

Just because you might not understand or accept it doesn't make it black magic, a pact with the devil or even Intelligent Design.

To followup on Paul's last comment, the USGA put the Overall Distance Standard in place in the '70s or '80s when the manufacturers started modifying the dimples so that the ball still passed the Initial Velocity Test (which was put in place in 1941) but flew a lot further due to improved aerodynamics.

Spin characteristics were modified by the initial Surlyn balls.

All the manufacturers did was figure out how to make a Surlyn ball that acted like a Balata.  Perhaps it is some kind of strange hybrid species, but it certainly passes Darwin's survival of the fittest test.

The rolled back balls that Titleist and others produced for the USGA are probably not wound balata balls.  They are simply 2 or 3 piece balls with lesser flight characteristics.  I'd bet the only machine that still exists for winding a ball with rubber bands is in a museum somewhere.

[Brent Hutto]

The same club head speed would be used for all.

Well, it wouldn't be informative in the least to test spin off a sand wedge at 120mph or spin off a driver at 75mph would it? I thought we were talking about golf balls and the games of elite players, not idle thought experiments.

I have to wonder what possible reason you would expect the wound balata ball  not to exhibit the linear relationship I outlined. The reason I prefaced each statement with I believe, is because I have no knowledge of such a study.

I say I expect that because in the back of my mind I recall just such a graph. Unless I'm imagining it, the source was probably "Search for the Perfect Swing". Or maybe I made the graph myself using simulation software. Or maybe I'm just wrong (but I doubt it).

The reason I came to these conclusions is that wound balatas spun faster off all club faces then rockflite style balls did off the same clubfaces. Currently Pro V1s spin about the same as rockflite style balls do off drivers, whereas they spin much much faster than rockflite style balls do off short irons.

OK, that is certainly possible. But what you're describing could just as easily be two linear relationships with different slopes as it could one linear slope and one non-linear (or it could be two different non-linear curves). That's the problem that always plagues these threads, people notice something that's probably true (at least approximately) and then jump to the conclusion that their observation supports some very specific highly technical assertion that is perhaps sufficient but almost never necessary to explain the observation.

Here's a few starting points for a rational discussion. Don't say "linear" if you don't mean at least an approximately straight-line relationship. Don't say "exponential" unless you mean at least approximately a curve described by an exponential function. Don't assume that the first explanation for something that pops into your head is the only possible explanation. And most importantly, make clear when you're describing something that is supportable by objective evidence and when you're describing something that you think has to be true even though you've never measured it or seen the results of someone else's measurement of it.

I've always half bought into the marketing hype that claims three-piece and four-piece solid core balls allow the designer extra degrees of freedom to independently (somewhat) manipulate the spin rate off drivers, irons and wedges. On the other hand, every objective test of golf balls with different clubs show the difference among ball models to be very modest. Mostly, they all show a pretty similar spin vs. club plot to a plain old two-piece golf ball. Of late, I'm starting to think that the actual differences are a few percent here and there and not as earth-shattering as the advertisements want us to believe.

[A.G._Crockett]

Garland,
JohnV is, of course, right again.  You assume, for some reason, that the "natural" spin of a golf ball was represented by a balata ball, which makes the spin rates of ProV's somehow unnatural.  It's like we're talking about organic farming or free-range golf ball production or something.  

There is no such thing as a "natural" spin rate for a golf ball.  There are only things like maximum, minimum, optimal, etc.  Not natural.

[Garland Bayley]

Garland, why is an intelligent use of the knowledge of physics and aerodynamics unnatural?

Because you can't modify a rock thusly!

[BCrosby]

This is a great thread, Brent. I don't understand everything, but I think I get the big stuff (though maybe as if through a glass darkly).

(I note your mention of the best golf book ever written. Cochran and Stobbs is incredible. Why it isn't widely known, quoted daily and set to memory is beyond me. Your understanding of it is at a whole different level than mine, however.)

But to paraphrase George Orwell - haven't we come to point where "the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men"?

I mean, whether or not increases in distance are linear over different swing speeds, is there any serious doubt that tournament fields are hitting it much farther than they did 10 years ago, and much, much farther than they did 20 years ago, etc. and that we have reached a crisis point with historic golf courses?

Is that issue in doubt? I ask my question only because, reading between the USGA lines, they seem to imply it is in doubt; that everything is just fine and under control and we shouldn't worry.

Me, I worry. A lot.

Bob

[Garland Bayley]

Just because you might not understand or accept it doesn't make it black magic, a pact with the devil or even Intelligent Design.

Who doesn't understand what? I believe I understand what was done to make the Stratas and Pro V1s have radically different spin characteristics than a rock. You seem to be in denial that is was a significant departure from the wound balata ball and rockflites of old.

[Brent Hutto]

I mean, whether or not increases in distance are linear over different swing speeds, is there any serious doubt that tournament fields are hitting it much farther than they did 10 years ago, and much, much farther than they did 20 years ago, etc. and that we have reached a crisis point with historic golf courses?

Is that issue in doubt? I ask my question only because, reading between the USGA lines, they seem to imply it is in doubt; that everything is just fine and under control and we shouldn't worry.

If the golf world collectively decides that the modern game is out of whack with the traditional scale of a golf course then two responses are possible.

1) We can decide to change our idea of how big a golf course ought to be and how it relates to the scale of human beings and human habitation.

2) We can decide to change the golf ball in order to scale the modern game back to be more in keeping with the courses as they've been conceived for the past century or so.

As I said earlier in the thread, a lot of the hows and whys of golf balls and clubs are only relevant in as much as they inform the question of how to best accomplish #2 such that it holds for at least a generation or two. We're not going to start back using wooden drivers and elite golfers aren't going to quit getting stronger with better swings. If anything is going to change, I can't for the life of me see it being something other than the golf course or the golf ball.

In that case, I'm inclined to choose changing the ball. I hope such changes would be done modestly, equitably and with some forethought for future developments. I certainly would not be in favor of pretending the issue does not exist for another decade or so. Likewise I would not be in favor of any sort of backward-looking attempt to prescribe wound balls or rubber covers or extremely specific regulation about the construction of the ball. Just specify in what ways we want the ball to act differently than a ProV1 so as to reign in some of the great improvements in distance from the Nineties and Double-Noughts.

[Brent Hutto]

I believe I understand what was done to make the Stratas and Pro V1s have radically different spin characteristics than a rock. You seem to be in denial that is was a significant departure from the wound balata ball and rockflites of old.

Nobody denies that a ProV1x is different from a wound balata or 80's-vintage surlyn distance ball. Everyone here agrees on that. What we "deny" is that the existence of a ProV1x is in any way "unfair", "unnatural" or not in keeping with the letter and spirit of the Rule of Golf. It's different, heck it's better in every way, there's nothing wrong with better.

[Garland Bayley]

Nobody denies that a ProV1x is different from a wound balata or 80's-vintage surlyn distance ball. Everyone here agrees on that. What we "deny" is that the existence of a ProV1x is in any way "unfair", "unnatural" or not in keeping with the letter and spirit of the Rule of Golf. It's different, heck it's better in every way, there's nothing wrong with better.

To believe what you just wrote, you have to believe that the manufacturers knew that their balls would meet the initial velocity test and the ODS when they submitted them to the USGA, but they did not know that when optimized for driver loft/spin rate/launch angle the balls would well exceed the ODS. I believe they knew, and although they were in keeping with the letter of the Rules of Golf, they were not keeping in spirit with the Rules of Golf.

[George Pazin]

Well, the geek in me is somewhat intrigued by the technical aspects of this discussion, but, along the lines of what the sage Bob Crosby said, I think everyone is kind of losing the forest for the trees.

An ODS was created in the early 70s (I think), because people understood the implications of a large distance increase. Well, we've seen that increase, whatever the reason. It appears that the once beautiful balance that existed between power and finesse has been altered, to the game's loss, imho.

Is there a bonifide reason to remain married to that standard? Can it not be revisited?

[Garland Bayley]

... It appears that the once beautiful balance that existed between power and finesse has been altered, to the game's loss, imho.

Exactly George! This is why I am against the change in spin characteristics. This is why Brent is wrong when he says the new balls are better in every way.

[George Pazin]

Nobody denies that a ProV1x is different from a wound balata or 80's-vintage surlyn distance ball. Everyone here agrees on that. What we "deny" is that the existence of a ProV1x is in any way "unfair", "unnatural" or not in keeping with the letter and spirit of the Rule of Golf. It's different, heck it's better in every way, there's nothing wrong with better.

To believe what you just wrote, you have to believe that the manufacturers knew that their balls would meet the initial velocity test and the ODS when they submitted them to the USGA, but they did not know that when optimized for driver loft/spin rate/launch angle the balls would well exceed the ODS. I believe they knew, and although they were in keeping with the letter of the Rules of Golf, they were not keeping in spirit with the Rules of Golf.

I don't think it is quite as nefarious as you make it sound. I am under the impression that, even now, the prov1, etc., meet the ODS, and that the old Top Flites/Pinnacles/etc., would exceed the ODS, if hit under optimal conditions - higher swing speed, coupled with optimized launch angle, etc.

[John Kavanaugh]

... It appears that the once beautiful balance that existed between power and finesse has been altered, to the game's loss, imho.

Exactly George! This is why I am against the change in spin characteristics. This is why Brent is wrong when he says the new balls are better in every way.

There you guys go making stuff up again...who are the great players today that don't have an equal measure of power and finesse..

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()