[Garland Bayley]

Bryan,

Your example makes perfect sense. Ball don't care about club path. All it sees is the static loft.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

In the early 2000's, right around and shortly after the release of the Pro V1, Titleist filed multiple patents for High MOI golf balls.

Thank you for that. I was unaware that patent filings underwent rigorous scientific peer review. 

This would be heavily influenced by the MOI of the ball. The higher the MOI, the more the ball will hold the starting line regardless strike conditions at impact.

You seem to be conflating the ball's linear motion with its rotational motion. Golf balls all weigh the same — a ball's linear momentum is the same as another golf ball at the same speed because balls weigh the same. The curve on the ball is simply a matter of the aerodynamics and spin loss rates.

And my friend, who provided most of the science you ignored, wanted me to add that he had a good chuckle at your avoidance.

[Ben Hollerbach]

I see nothing there that makes me understand why a pro would have trouble hitting a higher spin ball long AND straight.

The composition of the golf ball has no defense against a perfect strike. Nor should it. A player that is able to flush the golf ball should gain every advantage possible.

PGA Tour pros are very, very good, but they are not perfect. On average they miss 40% of their fairways and each missed fairway is nearly 10 yards into the rough. What would happen if during the 6 times a round they miss the fairway, they didn't just miss by 10 yards, but missed it by 20-25 yards?

Tour players don't have the luxury of selecting which fairways they miss. Instead they have uncertainty. Imagine, along with the uncertainty of a 40% miss rate,  they're also facing a miss of 20+ yards into the rough and beyond.

Can they be as aggressive all the time or will they need to play more strategic tee shots more frequently, pulling architecture back into the equation. Hazards become much more important. Bomb and Gauge will fade because the bombs will be more likely to blow up in their face.




Brian,

The golf equipment industry for years has known that maximum distance is the result of high launch and low spin. Remember the TaylorMade 17 campaign. The low swing speed player has always produced low spin in relation to high swing speed players and has needed assistance to generate higher launch conditions. The high swing speed player had historically produced high spin, thus the introduction of the high MOI golf ball to assist in reducing their ball spin.

When a low MOI ball is compared to a high MOI ball hit by a high swing speed player, a similar ball that is hit by a low swing speed player will experience a smaller spin rate change than the spin rate change experienced by tour caliber players.

For example, using the Ping chart and near fixed launch angle of 13.9*, we can see that as the player's ball speed increases their optimal spin rate must decrease. As high swing speed players inherently produce more spin than low swing speed players, how would they decrease their spin rate while preserving launch angle? They would need a higher MOI golf ball.

[Ben Hollerbach]

Erik,

I’m not sure if you’re joking about the patent peer review process. Patents go through a rigorous review with multiple participants and stakeholders until approval. They don’t let you patent something that is not provable and accurate.

The important part of all of this is a miss hit will travel more offline with a lower MOI, higher spinning, golf ball. Titleist’s patent’s state this. Anyone with a deep experience playing golf has encountered this. Even flight calculators state this.

Your 5* spin axis example is not a miss hit, It is a small cut that is representative of the preferred driver flight of many players on tour. It is not a miss hit.

A miss hit that produces a 20* spin axis will move the ball offline ~30% more at 5500 rpm than at 2500 rpm. That is very substantial.

This isn’t a question about a flushed shot. This is about how the ball turns on a miss hit. A lower MOI golf ball will turn more on a miss hit shot.



I didn’t ignore your friend’s science, I provided patents containing physics from the leading golf ball experts in the world.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

I’m not sure if you’re joking about the patent peer review process. Patents go through a rigorous review with multiple participants and stakeholders until approval. They don’t let you patent something that is not provable and accurate.

The fact is they don't rigorously test the science therein. You're patently wrong (see what I did there?  ) about the science here, which is why you completely ducked any discussion of it. And you doubled down with your "hold the starting line" stuff.

The important part of all of this is a miss hit will travel more offline with a lower MOI, higher spinning, golf ball. Titleist’s patent’s state this.

Do you believe everything you read in a patent application? Why, it must be true! No?

Anyone with a deep experience playing golf has encountered this. Even flight calculators state this.

Please cite more anecdata when actual science is available.

A miss hit that produces a 20* spin axis will move the ball offline ~30% more at 5500 rpm than at 2500 rpm. That is very substantial.

I don't agree that a 30% difference at more than double the spin is "substantial." It's not nothing, but 5500 RPM is getting pretty ridiculous. And if it's a mis-hit, the ball speed will take a hit, too, so the ball won't fly as far and thus won't go as far offline as a ball hit flush with the same spin axis, spin rate, and a higher ball speed.

This isn’t a question about a flushed shot. This is about how the ball turns on a miss hit. A lower MOI golf ball will turn more on a miss hit shot.

PGA Tour players don't mis-hit the ball all that often. You can't keep saying "anyone who ever played with balata knows this" because balata went out just as bigger headed drivers, etc. came into play, too. It's not a direct comparison. It's anecdotal.

I didn’t ignore your friend’s science, I provided patents containing physics from the leading golf ball experts in the world.

Again, patent applications aren't "science." They're not rigorously peer reviewed by interested parties in that specific field. They just check the design or feature to make sure it hasn't been patented before and that it's clearly defined. My friend has his name on some patents regarding the use of something that is literally physically impossible, but the lawyers wanted patented "just in case" somebody else got "close enough" to the use cases.

Tesla just patented laser beams as windshield wipers. You can patent anything regardless of whether it actually works or is even feasible. Patent application reviewers are often engineers, but they're not paid enough to "prove" or "disprove" if it works, only to check to see if it's been patented before.

Furthermore, you've yet to tell us what the MOI of a balata ball is versus a modern ball. Solid golf balls existed back then, too: Pinnacles, etc. And amateurs still managed to hit some awfully bad slices with them, too. Just as they continue to hit them with the Pro V1.

P.S. Those patents aren't even for a "high MOI golf ball." That's a different patent. Those patents are for a vague "combination" of "spin rate, lift coefficient, drag coefficients, and optionally moment of intertia:" Ball companies filed patents for all kinds of stuff back then, so they could sue Kirkland and KickX and other companies for vague infringements, and force settlements. Callaway and Titleist were in lawsuits, TaylorMade was in a few, etc.

[Joe Zucker]

Here is an interesting looking academic paper on racquet technology in tennis and how it affected different skills.  I haven't read it, but I would guess there are strong parallels to golf.  Below is the abstract.


https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0927537121000865


Technological innovation can raise the returns to some skills while making others less valuable or even obsolete. We study the effects of such skill-altering technological change in the context of men’s professional tennis, which was unexpectedly transformed by the invention of composite racquets during the late 1970s. We explore the consequences of this innovation on player productivity, entry, and exit. We find that young players benefited at the expense of older players and that the disruptive effects of the new racquets persisted over two to four generations.

[Garland Bayley]

If increase the spin of the ball would do "bupkis", are you suggesting that the spin and control of balls 25 years ago has been blown out of proportion, or has the game overcome the negative effects of those balls?

A fractional increase in ball spin would do bupkis. I say this because even a 100% increase (doubling) in ball spin doesn't do as much as people seem to think. Plug in the numbers into a launch optimizer, you'll see. I think I posted pictures earlier up-thread.

People act like the Tour Balata spun like crazy off the driver. It didn't. And even if you could make a Pro V1x spin 500 RPM more, it'd result in a pretty small change in distance/curve, and also be worked around pretty quickly by the tour guys (reps, players, fitters, engineers).

I'll quote a friend who made these:

The main issue with what Phil is trying to argue here is that spin rate has very little to do with how much a ball will curve - that's governed primarily by the spin axis. More or less spin with the same spin axis will have very little effect on the measured curvature of a golf ball, because most reasonable spin axis values (ball not dramatically hooking or slicing) are 10% or less. Going from 2500 RPM to 5500 RPM, which is MASSIVE on a tee shot, will produce the following curvatures with a 5% spin axis and PGA Tour-level ball speeds (180 MPH):

The difference is so tiny you have to zoom in REALLY close to even see the grey line that shows the path of the 2500 RPM tee shot, because they both curved very nearly the same distance off line.

Phil's comments about ball spin are uninformed.

Erik,

My first question is where did Flightscope get a ball that spins 5500 rpm off of driver when launched at 12 degrees to empirically verify that the results shown above have any relation to reality?

My second question is what is the point of the simulation? Phil talked about getting more side spin, but the simulation above shows only one value of side spin. How does that remotely address what Phil talked about?

[Erik J. Barzeski]

My first question is where did Flightscope get a ball that spins 5500 rpm off of driver when launched at 12 degrees to empirically verify that the results shown above have any relation to reality?

Why don't you ask them? I'm pretty sure they can tell you, empirically and otherwise, where they got that information.

My second question is what is the point of the simulation? Phil talked about getting more side spin, but the simulation above shows only one value of side spin. How does that remotely address what Phil talked about?

You can't just "increase sidespin." Phil was talking out of his ass. The spin axis remains generally consistent — you can increase spin, but that increases backspin and sidespin.

And maybe you misread the graphic: that's just the same shot from two angles, with the other line (not the yellow one) being the 2500 RPM shot. So you can see that it's not like the ball curves over 100% farther right because it has 5500 spin instead of 2500 spin. The graphic is the same two shots, with the "data" for the second shot at 5500 shown.

The point is that just mandating an "increase to spin" doesn't accomplish nearly what many seem to think it does.

[Ben Hollerbach]

The fact is they don't rigorously test the science therein. You're patently wrong (see what I did there?  ) about the science here, which is why you completely ducked any discussion of it.

The majority of the audience on this board is not interested in discussing the pure physics of a golf ball’s MOI. Devolving this discussion fully into that realm wouldn’t have been beneficial for anyone. The fact that this discussion has garnered so little response from other parties should be sufficient evidence for you to understand that.  So rather than conduct a discussion that would have been ignored by 99% of participants and viewers, I went to a source that is widely respected among the golf community and can be better understood by everyone reading here.

I don't agree that a 30% difference at more than double the spin is "substantial." It's not nothing, but 5500 RPM is getting pretty ridiculous. And if it's a mis-hit, the ball speed will take a hit, too, so the ball won't fly as far and thus won't go as far offline as a ball hit flush with the same spin axis, spin rate, and a higher ball speed.

5,500 rpm originated with you in Reply #472. You used that number for one of your simulations, why did you use it if you think it’s ridiculous? Spin rates on the PGA Tour with wound balata balls were approximately 4,000 rpm, 60% more than the tour rate today.

PGA Tour players don't mis-hit the ball all that often.

What are you defining as a PGA Tour level miss hit and what is the frequency of that shot?

PGA Tour pros miss 40% of their fairways, and their average miss is 10 yards off of the fairway. The miss fairway percentage and magnitude of their miss fairway average on the PGA Tour would suggest they miss more than enough shots that negative ball flight characteristics on a miss hit would be a concern to a PGA Tour level professional.

P.S. Those patents aren't even for a "high MOI golf ball."

I wonder if you even looked at the patents I posted or if you just refuted them right away because they don’t match with your bias. The title of the patents I posted in Reply #540 are “Golf ball having a high moment of inertia” and “Golf ball having a high moment of inertia and low driver spin rate”. It’s all there, all the science, math, and industry expertise you need. A ball with a higher MOI flies farther and straighter. As you believe that these patents have not gone through the level of peer review required to affirm or disprove their finding, I encourage you to fulfill that role. Please explain where Titleist’s physics has gone wrong and how their calculations are incorrect.

[Ben Hollerbach]

Could you point us to some empirical data about the MOI of modern and Balata balls.  There's plenty of discussion on the MOI of clubs but few actual numbers.  There is zero information that I can find on MOI of balls.

“the moment of inertia for a 1.62 oz and 1.68 inch golf ball with evenly distributed weight through any diameter is 0.4572 oz·inch². Hence, moments of inertia higher than about 0.46 oz·inch² would be considered as a high moment of inertia ball.”
~(Golf ball having a high moment of inertia) Acushnet Co. / Titleist

Old two piece balls would have had MOI’s close even distribution.  This Dunlop / Maxfli / TaylorMade patent compares their high MOI wound ball to two piece balls in 2001. (Golf ball with high specific gravity threads) They show the 2 piece balls at 12.5 g in², which is 0.44 oz in².

The Titleist Tour Balata was calculated as having a MOI of between 0.407-0.412 oz in², with the variance most likely the result of a difference between the 90 and 100 compression balls. (Golf Ball) Top Flight Golf Co. / Callaway Golf Co.

In the same Titleist patent listed above, they state a MOI above 0.575 oz in² was ideal.

“The present invention is also preferably directed to a ball comprising a core, an intermediate layer and a cover wherein the weight or mass of the ball is allocated outwardly to form a high moment of inertia and wherein the cover is made from a soft material having a hardness of 65 (shore D) or less. The moment of inertia of the ball is preferably greater than 0.46 oz·inch², more preferably 0.50 oz·inch², and most preferably 0.575 oz·inch². Similar to the embodiment discussed above, the intermediate layer may comprise a non-continuous layer having a high specific gravity. It may also comprise a thin dense layer and/or a second non-continuous layer. The core preferably has a low specific gravity and is preferably foamed. The specific gravities, locations, thicknesses, hardness and surface areas discussed above relating to the individual layers of the inventive golf ball are equally applicable to this embodiment.” ~(Golf ball having a high moment of inertia) Acushnet Co. / Titleist

Interestingly, Titleist discussed in the patent how to make a ball with .6898 oz in² MOI.

If we take Titleist’s 0.575 oz in² preferable number vs a two piece ball, we see it was 30% higher. Compared to a Tour Balata, the difference is now 40% higher.

As this patent is more than 15 years old, If the 0.6898 oz in² was turned into a ball then we are starting to push towards these balls having twice the MOI of wound liquid filled balls!

[Ben Hollerbach]

After a brief search I turned up the following list of patents that all discuss the impact ball MOI has on spin and control. It’s clear the entire golf industry has been developing and designing golf balls with this high MOI concept for decades.

Titleist:

• Golf Ball Having a High Moment of Inertia
• Golf Ball Having a High Moment of Interia and Low Driver Spin Rate
• Golf Ball Having Specific Spin, Moment of Inertia, Lift, and Drag Relationship
• Golf Ball and a Method For Controlling the Spin Rate of Same
• Perimeter Weighted Golf Ball
• Variable Moment of Inertia Golf Ball
• Foam-Core Golf Balls

Nike:

• Golf Ball Having Increased Moment of Inertia

Callaway / Spalding:

• Low Spin Golf Ball Comprising a Mantle Having a Hollow Interior
• Low Spin Golf Ball Comprising a Mantle with Cellular or Liquid Core
• Perimeter Weighted Multi-Layer Golf Ball
• Low Spin Golf Ball Utilizing Perimeter Weighting
• A Multilayer Golf Ball Having an Increased Moment of Inertia
• Golf Ball Having a Controlled Variable Moment of Inertia and Method of Making Same
• Golf Ball

TaylorMade / Dunlop:

• Golf Ball with High Specific Gravity Threads

Bridgestone:

• Wound Golf Ball

This is not a new concept that has been in the works for the past few years. No, the golf industry has been working on new ways to increase the MOI of their golf balls for nearly 30 years. Every patent describes how a higher MOI helps the golf ball flight farther and straighter and how that benefit is magnified as the ball speed goes up.

While not the first solid core performance ball to hit the market, being predated by both the Strata and Nike, The Pro V1 completely changed the market. But when the Pro V1 came out Titleist did not publicly discuss the change in the balls MOI and how that would impact your play, they pointed out the change in construction between a wound and solid core ball, but said the two complimented each other, not that the Pro V1 would replace the Balata, Professional, or Prestige.

 From the first press release in October 2000 and onward they spoke of the ball in 2 ways: “large solid core, multi-component construction and high performance urethane elastomer cover technology.” and “Drop and Stop® performance” While the first line was more technical and more informative than the second, my guess is you remember the second more than the first. Knowing the majority of the golf world wouldn’t understand the science behind the change they left most of it out and distilled the value of the new ball into longer distance off of the tee and Drop and Stop® performance around the greens.

If a new USGA rule was put into place that reduced the MOI of the golf ball closer to the 0.46 oz in2 mark, the golf ball manufacturers already know how to build that ball. They know that the impact of that change will be greatest the higher the ball speed and they know the majority of players will see little difference in their ball’s performance.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

The majority of the audience on this board is not interested in discussing the pure physics of a golf ball’s MOI. Devolving this discussion fully into that realm wouldn’t have been beneficial for anyone. The fact that this discussion has garnered so little response from other parties should be sufficient evidence for you to understand that.  So rather than conduct a discussion that would have been ignored by 99% of participants and viewers, I went to a source that is widely respected among the golf community and can be better understood by everyone reading here.

So, let me get this straight…

• You start off by writing that to me for continuing to post about a topic that "benefits nobody" and has "garnered so little response" that there should be "sufficient evidence for {me} to understand that…"
• You follow that up with three more posts that ignore the basic science and basic points I've made earlier.

I'll make only a few brief points. As for explaining the science, scroll up. We did that already.

• Patent applications are intentionally broad, sometimes literally physically impossible, and not reviewed in any way that could be described as "rigorously" except perhaps and occasionally to make sure there isn't a conflict with another application. Patent applications are not hard science. I suspect you know this, deep down…
• The hard science shows that more than doubling the spin rate of a ball by more than halving the MOI of the ball and keeping other launch conditions the same (that is to say "unoptimized for the new spin rate") results in a relatively small change. Hence why I chose to more than double the spin rate from 2500 to 5500, a "ridiculous" amount of spin… that resulted in a relatively small change to the ball's curvature and distance loss.

You don't understand the science, you get on my case about continuing the discussion right before you make three more posts about it in which you continue to over-value patent applications of all things…

And all I've really been trying to say is that I don't think that "make the ball spin more" is a great way to go if you wanted to "rollback" something here. I think people tend to over-estimate:

• How much spin changes a ball's flight. It's much more about the spin axis. And changing the MOI of a ball doesn't change the spin axis.
• How quickly engineers, players, etc. could drastically reduce a spin number even if it was somehow mandated to increase the ball's spin by 30%, or 50%, or more.

To one specific point… yes, balata balls often spun at 3000 to 4000 RPM. But players tended to hit down a bit with the driver, and that was before we knew as much as we know now about optimized launch conditions. And even if you could make a ball spin at 4000 and somehow prevent engineers, etc. from working around it, that would only about half as much to change the distance and "curve" of the 2500 -> 5500 RPM change I've shown.

From the first press release in October 2000 and onward they spoke of the ball in 2 ways: “large solid core, multi-component construction and high performance urethane elastomer cover technology.” and “Drop and Stop® performance”

In other words, they put a soft cover on a Pinnacle (solid) core. That was the breakthrough in the Pro V1, the Strata, the Rule 35 ball, etc. It spun off the wedges without spinning quite so much off the driver. They already knew how to make a low-spinning ball. The Pinnacle was legal forever. They didn't know how to get the short-game spin that the game's best wanted (which is why they kept playing balata when they could have played a Pinnacle), until they found the urethane cover.

They know that the impact of that change will be greatest the higher the ball speed and they know the majority of players will see little difference in their ball’s performance.

Including the top players in the game. Making a rule like that wouldn't result in anything close to the 2500 -> 5500 RPM change I've been using as a super-extreme example. So, as I've been saying, this would be a lousy way of achieving what y'all seem to want to achieve.

[Garland Bayley]

My first question is where did Flightscope get a ball that spins 5500 rpm off of driver when launched at 12 degrees to empirically verify that the results shown above have any relation to reality?

Why don't you ask them? I'm pretty sure they can tell you, empirically and otherwise, where they got that information.

You are the one that brought Flightscope to the discussion. I have no information on that product. Can you not refer to their documentation, and answer the question? As to "where they got that information", which I assume means where they got their results you displayed, I trust they got the results by applying their mathematical model to calculate the results. The problem is that mathematical models are not facts, and they can become invalid when parameters go outside the experimental data from which they are derived.

My second question is what is the point of the simulation? Phil talked about getting more side spin, but the simulation above shows only one value of side spin. How does that remotely address what Phil talked about?

You can't just "increase sidespin." Phil was talking out of his ass. The spin axis remains generally consistent — you can increase spin, but that increases backspin and sidespin.

And maybe you misread the graphic: that's just the same shot from two angles, with the other line (not the yellow one) being the 2500 RPM shot. So you can see that it's not like the ball curves over 100% farther right because it has 5500 spin instead of 2500 spin. The graphic is the same two shots, with the "data" for the second shot at 5500 shown.

The point is that just mandating an "increase to spin" doesn't accomplish nearly what many seem to think it does.

How exactly did you come up with the 5500 rpm result? Are you allowed to set parameters on how much a particular ball spins off of driver? I.e., is there a ball parameters setting capability that allows you to define a ball that will spin at 5500 under typical driver parameters?

[Pat Burke]

Funny.
Some

Tried to mess with grooves to eliminate spin in hopes of creating a demand for more “control”


Now some wanting more spin for less control


More spin in the ball would be negated by many very quickly with Club/shaft/swing adjustments


And that added spin would just make short game easier.


Like the grooves change, it would screw up a few players, but the overall change would not be what is hoped for re distance  imo

[jeffwarne]

Funny.
Some

Tried to mess with grooves to eliminate spin in hopes of creating a demand for more “control”


Now some wanting more spin for less control


More spin in the ball would be negated by many very quickly with Club/shaft/swing adjustments


And that added spin would just make short game easier.


Like the grooves change, it would screw up a few players, but the overall change would not be what is hoped for re distance  imo

bingo-
If they want the ball to go shorter, at Tour level speeds..
construct a ball that goes shorter.
They already have them at some driving ranges.


Every other measure will either fail immediately, or be worked around in short order.
The idea that simply any spinnier ball, or smaller head, will cause a player to swing easier, is ludicrous.
It might cause SOME players an issue, but their place will quickly be taken by another player, who goes all out.
Hitting the center of the club is NOT that hard for elite players-it's controlling the face that determines accuracy.
Anyone watching Jack in the 60's,Arnie, Johnny Miller, or Tom Watson can't possible think they were  swinging "easy".
The ball is the simplest, one stop shopping variable, though I compeltely understand a shorter, heavier driver, with a lower COR would be effectives as well, but that's just too many variables for the ruling bodies to get right-based on past(and proposed-46 inch limit) inept modifications to the rules.
 

[JESII]

Seems to me a lighter ball may be the silver bullet...thoughts?


We've had several posts suggesting it, some with good detail. What are the cons?

[jeffwarne]

Seems to me a lighter ball may be the silver bullet...thoughts?


We've had several posts suggesting it, some with good detail. What are the cons?

Jim,
I'm not smart enough to know if that would be better or worse, but it would seem that it could be problematic in the wind.
Assuming someone supports a rollback(or bifurcation) I'm puzzled why they simply wouldn't just support a ball that is the same size, same weight, but goes x % shorter at 105-130 mph(Tour speeds) with current legal equipment.
And when they out engineer/optimize/get more athletic again in a few years, you dial it back(or forward) again if needed

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Seems to me a lighter ball may be the silver bullet...thoughts?

We've had several posts suggesting it, some with good detail. What are the cons?

Have you considered how good putters would feel about a lighter ball? That's an overlooked "con."

[JESII]

Both Jeff and Erik...I don't think we're talking actual bouncing balloon weight lighter balls. I suspect a couple percent lighter than today would make a significant difference down flight but not enough for the wind to carry it away...or for lip out to stay out more than very slightly.


Maybe I'm wrong...

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Both Jeff and Erik...I don't think we're talking actual bouncing balloon weight lighter balls. I suspect a couple percent lighter than today would make a significant difference down flight but not enough for the wind to carry it away...or for lip out to stay out more than very slightly.

I'm definitely not talking about lip-outs. And if you want to do 2% lighter… then what's the point? Does that even do anything?

What weight were the old "balloon" balls? How much shorter do the Lynx balls go when hit by an adult (they're also smaller in size, too, so it's not a direct comparison): https://golf.com/gear/golf-balls/lynx-golf-junior-hi-fly-ai-golf-ball/.

[JESII]

https://golfclubatlas.com/in-my-opinion/john-vander-borght-the-balloon-ball/


Check out this piece by JVB.


1.62oz down to 1.55oz

[Ben Hollerbach]

Have you considered how good putters would feel about a lighter ball? That's an overlooked "con."

Considering being good at putting is relative to one being bad at putting, doesn't the question center around how difficult it would be for the good putter and bad putter to adjust to the new weight ball?. If the good putters touch allows them to adjust quicker, won't that just make them better putters relatively?


Also, how would that differ to putting on a different speed green, or a green with a different type of grass and grain?

[jeffwarne]

https://golfclubatlas.com/in-my-opinion/john-vander-borght-the-balloon-ball/


Check out this piece by JVB.


1.62oz down to 1.55oz

Yet, it failed the first time.
and seemed to be a real problem in the wind.
and why affect putting and touch.
Again, I simply don't see why(if possible) any adjustment other than how far it goes, is needed(I do realize smarter people then me might point out that is harder than I'm trying to make it)

[Ben Hollerbach]

https://golfclubatlas.com/in-my-opinion/john-vander-borght-the-balloon-ball/


Check out this piece by JVB.


1.62oz down to 1.55oz

Interesting, so they changed both the size and weight, and the public determined the biggest issue was the weight? how? It seems that they were in favor of the size based on how the ball sat, making it easier to hit woods and long irons. So, while they found an advantage with the size did they really know that the negatives of the ball came strictly from the weight?


When the weight of the ball was returned to 1.62, they player at the time would have still noticed a performance difference between the old 1.62" diameter ball and the 1.68" diameter ball.


"The New York Times reported later that year that the primary complaints by players about the 'balloon' ball were that 'they were losing distance on their shots, found it increasingly difficult to play in the wind and finally that the ball did not have the true putting qualities of the old ball on the green.'"

These were the same complains often made when comparing the 1.68 American ball to the 1.62 British ball. So which change to the ball generated the greatest impact on the ball's play?

[Ben Hollerbach]

Dave Tutelman suggests that a lighter weight ball would both decrease distance from high swing speed players AND increase distance from low swing speed players, while having virtually no distance change to the average swing speed player.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()