I've never found a credible swing speed-distance graph comparable to the one from the USGA study of the modern ball.That graph is for the modern ball, albeit from around 2005.
If you have one, please share with the source. There's lots of anecdotal samples using balata balls out there but not one that covers all the swing speeds in one study. Even I've hit balata balls in a launch monitor but I only have one swing speed - slow.I do, but cannot share it, as it's not mine to share, nor is it publicly available AFAIK. It was less linear.
I think that your perception that the manufacturers can "monkey" with performance at individual points on a swing speed-distance curve is likely physically impossible.I am not saying that they can at several individual points. I'm saying that it doesn't have to be as linear as the current golf ball is, and so given that the one point at which it is regulated will be even farther from the point at which modern PGA Tour players swing, on average, there's potential for them to have a curve to the line. Maybe they won't find that it's in their best interests to create that ball (they haven't for the modern ball, and this is only a 7 MPH difference, so I wouldn't be willing to bet more than a few bucks for interest that they would for the MLR ball either), but it's not "physically impossible," as it's existed before. An AlmostGolf ball exhibits a non-linear response — it's not a real golf ball, it's a firm but lightweight foam ball, but it demonstrates that it's not impossible.
Agreed, nothing about AoA in the ALC. Whether those are optimal launch conditions for that club speed remains in doubt in my mind.Adjusting the launch to 12° per the https://trajectory.flightscope.com/ indicates that perhaps they're not, so… I wonder if they'll adjust them. Or if FS is just off a little. The longer, better players are pretty close to 2220 and 11, though (McIlroy was almost spot on those two numbers).
I thought you were suggesting that players would adjust their AoA to achieve something closer to optimal launch conditions for themselves.I am. Many of them are willingly giving up yards right now in favor of a little more control, but it could be an unintended consequence that they get those yards right back (and maybe more).
About ten years ago, I saw how a Tour player could gain 30 yards pretty much instantly. He hit down a little, played a little too much loft, and spun the ball a bit too much with the driver. He liked the ball with all the other clubs, and he was already top 25 on Tour for distance, and he felt "out of control" when he launched the ball with the conditions that would get him 30 extra yards. He "liked" seeing a lower launching ball that spun a bit more and got on the ground a bit earlier, and he was already, in his opinion, "long enough."
Sure, that's possible but if the ALC has the correct optimal launch conditionsIt has nothing to do with the ALC. I'm saying that a guy who hits it 304 now, to pick a number, but does so sub-optimally may hit it 306 with the MLR ball because they make some changes to hit it closer to optimal.
You later get to this, so I'm not sure where the miscommunication occurred, but I think we finally get to being on the same page there.
Might players be able to achieve better distance results with the rolled back ball? It's possible if their current launch conditions are sub-optimal enough and they can retool their swings to get to the optimum.That's what I'm saying. The change is so small (~4%), that some guys will be able to get that 4% back. Maybe not Rory, as he's already pretty close to optimal, but not everyone is as close to optimal as Rory is.
Anyway the rollback will get lost in the variation from day to day due to wind, course softness or firmness, altitude, etc. The USGA has dipped their toe in and the water is very hot. Imagine if they'd actually bit the bullet and set the ALC at 135 mph. That would have had a substantial impact. Or, if they keep the Initial Velocity condition.The USGA/R&A didn't go far enough, IMO. They should have gone a full 8% or so. I don't see how they won't need to do something like this again in 10 or 12 years. But then again, I still am not entirely sure how they didn't foresee companies being able to add short game spin to a Pinnacle or Top-Flite 25 years ago.
Some interesting stuff.
I had two personal experiences that were amazing to me
In 1997, I had a serious wrist injury, basically couldn’t play for 3 years.
When I started to play again, I was using the same 1996 Callaway driver I used prior to injury.
I was carrying that driver just under 255 post injury, even with the new solid core ball.
I went down to Callaway to test for a new driver and was launching my old driver at 9 degrees with nearly 3000 rpm.
In 45 minutes, I had changed to a 10.5 degree driver with a shaft that had a higher flex point
It was an easy adjustment to change my angle of attack to 2 degrees up (from one down) and all of a sudden I was carrying the ball12/13 yards further. In one afternoon! The only real adjustment was getting used to seeing the ball so much higher in the sky
When I attempted Champions tour after a 10 year break I was a low spin low launch player with my irons. Worked with Leadbetter to up my irons launch/spin and after one day with him gained about 25/30 feet in height and 500+ rpm spin on a six iron!
In tow months those changes took hold and a. Onus was that I could launch my driver higher with less loft and gained 8-10 yards
The ability players will have to optimize will be very interesting to watch.
Justin Thomas is pretty maxed out it seems with driver and is probably not too happy in part, due to that.