This discussion group is best enjoyed using Google Chrome, Firefox or Safari.
Designing and manufacturing a ball that performed as per your red line would be an engineering marvel. If the ball manufacturers could devise a ball with the red line distance vs swing speed profile why haven't they done it in the last 20 years.
The ODS is carry plus bounce and roll - see the USGA's Test Protocol section 3.1 b:
Longer than what? My point was that a ball that conforms to the MLR will likely perform not unlike the current ball in all ways except for distance and for distance it would be shorter for all.
Well, all the golf magazines, all the Touring pros, and all the club pros giving lessons, all get paid by the equipment manufacturers to promote "hitting it further". Follow the money!
Quote from: Tom_Doak on March 18, 2023, 12:17:24 PMWell, all the golf magazines, all the Touring pros, and all the club pros giving lessons, all get paid by the equipment manufacturers to promote "hitting it further". Follow the money!Not accurate.
Which of these were you describing as not accurate?
Club professionals make money selling golf equipment.
You didn’t write “club pros” you mentioned teaching pros and to be honest, I took that as an insult. I teach and coach to help students improve. I am paid well be my students, and have a few options for fitting equipment when needed with a few guys that are great at it. And I dont make a nickel on it, because I let the best guys I know take care of a client I am trying to help with their equipment and ball choices.Lumping all into any group is a cheap shot in many times
Highlighting a find and post on Twitter by Andy Meldum that references Titleists 2009 patent for a lessor distance golf ball - as the post states - “Here is Acushnet’s (Titleist) patent for a reduced flight ball designed to conform to proposed changes in regulation. It was lodged in 2009. The R&D work has already been done despite what the OEMs will try to tell us.https://patents.google.com/patent/US7815528B2/en“Lots of details which I imagine techie folks and stats fans may wish to read.Atb
Whatever the case, it's clearly not the case that the R&D had "already been done". Some research had been done but that doesn't mean that they'll stand still.
They have like 1600+ patents on the golf ball, so of course they've got patents here.
I've seen this statistic in various places but just don't buy it.
The actual number of golf ball inventions protected by patent will be much, much lower than 1600.
Quote from: Mark Pearce on March 19, 2023, 09:24:17 AMI've seen this statistic in various places but just don't buy it.They're probably just lying through their teeth.Quote from: Mark Pearce on March 19, 2023, 09:24:17 AMThe actual number of golf ball inventions protected by patent will be much, much lower than 1600.I'm gonna go with what they've publicly stated over your hunch.
Usually you like to “stipulate” rather than just going with it. Not very convincing.
Quote from: Tim Martin on March 19, 2023, 07:07:15 PMUsually you like to “stipulate” rather than just going with it. Not very convincing.Did you click the link? Titleist literally saying "more than 1,600 patents" for the golf ball is "not very convincing"?
You should have left the troll comment in there.
I was making reference to other posts where you stated “you were willing to stipulate” to something like you were giving a court ordered deposition.
The reality is it isn’t necessary as this is only a golf course architecture forum. Not surprised it went over your head as it’s clear you take yourself pretty seriously.
By the way Erik, are you this much of an asshole in real life, or is it just your message board persona?
Quote from: Bryan Izatt on March 18, 2023, 02:23:33 AMDesigning and manufacturing a ball that performed as per your red line would be an engineering marvel. If the ball manufacturers could devise a ball with the red line distance vs swing speed profile why haven't they done it in the last 20 years.The rule is at 120 right now, so no… they'd have little incentive to boost the 100 MPH guys a few yards. And… the illustration is a bit exaggerated otherwise all of the lines would be so close together as to be somewhat indistinguishable. But a ball's distance is not linear to clubhead speed.I'm unclear what you are saying. Is it that there will be little difference below 120 mph with a more severe flattening from 120 to 127 mph?As to the distance-clubhead speed relationship, it is pretty darned linear with a slight tail off at the highest speed. Hopefully you're already aware of the following from a USGA study in 2011 which covers the range of speeds from 90 to 125.The tail off, although small, is caused by diminishing COR with higher clubhead speeds as seen in the following from the same USGA study. In any event designing and manufacturing a ball that tails off rapidly above 120 mph seems unlikely to me. Maybe flattening the slope of the whole, almost linear, distance-swing speed curve might be possible, but if it was, I'd imagine they would have done it already as it advantages the recreational golfers who buy the most balls. Quote from: Bryan Izatt on March 18, 2023, 02:23:33 AMThe ODS is carry plus bounce and roll - see the USGA's Test Protocol section 3.1 b:Okay. They must standardize the surface. And that explains why the FlightScope Trajectory Optimizer stuff showing 315.5 made less sense. Quote from: Bryan Izatt on March 18, 2023, 02:23:33 AMLonger than what? My point was that a ball that conforms to the MLR will likely perform not unlike the current ball in all ways except for distance and for distance it would be shorter for all.And my point is that it doesn't have to for "everyone" because the point on the curve at which they enforce the limits is now (in the future anyway) farther out from the Tour average.Not sure what you're trying to say here. I was saying that the shorter ball will likely spin, roll, fly etc the same as the current ball does for all recreational and elite players according to their skills. It'll just go shorter. What that has to do with being further out than the tour average is not clear to me.Additionally, the change in ball characteristics may result in a change in how PGA Tour players hit the ball. Many still hit down… while they could say "oh, I can get those 14 yards back… and then some, by hitting up a bit." So, players may adjust and actually hit the new ball farther.The new ALC are supposed to be the optimal launch conditions at 127 mph. I'm a little skeptical and they say they are going to review that. If they are the optimal launch conditions, then hitting up on the ball will change an individual's launch conditions but they will be less optimal and not yield more distance. I'd imagine that the USGA, and you, are aware of the Trackman test results for positive angles of attack and optimal launch conditions. If the USGA gets the optimal launch conditions wrong then sure the players will be able to game the distance standard.The tour players data about hitting down on the ball is 4 or 5 years old. I'd imagine it's probably more on the positive side now as the players continue the pursuit of the optimal launch conditions for their swing speed to achieve the greatest distance and accuracy.
Many, if not most, of the big manufactures list on their websites what patents they have assigned to which products:TitleistBridgestoneCallawayTaylorMadePing
Having to work balls around trees has been a staple in golf forever
As far as I could tell, they were only encouraged so Executives could whip them out in braggartly style and exclaim "behold my war-chest" and/or use them as an excuse to sue and counter-sure competitors willy nilly for any and all reasons, whether it was related to the patent or not.