Comments on: The Mythical ‘Ball Boost’

By: A Ball Buster’s View from the Desert | The Sand Trap

A Ball Buster’s View from the Desert | The Sand Trap — Thu, 01 Nov 2007 14:13:41 +0000

[...] swing speed bring incrementally smaller increases in distance (just as this USGA study tells us, covered here), but it is actually possible to reach a swing speed where distance actually levels off or even [...]

By: Ben

Ben — Mon, 09 Apr 2007 15:56:03 +0000

Personally i can understand why everyone is getting so ticked about golf balls. But i mean theoretically is it really giving longer players that much more of an advantage. I mean many players can consistenly find the fairway with drives well over 280 yards. The fact is though that if you dont have a short game these new balls are not going to help much. And anyway the only reason Funk is saying anything is because he is frustrated. Let's face it guys he has been cold for a while and if he wants to blame it on the technolegy let him.

By: Erik J. Barzeski

Erik J. Barzeski — Wed, 26 Apr 2006 11:08:26 +0000

It is not supported in their marketing, and my hunch is that Robert may have swallowed a line of marketing. Here's the problem: people swinging 80 MPH still buy 9.5° drivers, so yeah, it's a unique challenge for them to get the same out of a ball as someone who hits it 120. The guy swinging 120 could easily get more distance under a huge range of launch conditions, but the guy swinging 80 with a 9.5° driver won't.

If you want an actual answer, two things: a) don't believe the marketing that tries to make the ball sound good for everyone (remember that TaylorMade knows that most people don't swing 120 MPH, so they have to try to convince them the ball is good for them, too) and b) ask the guy who actually knows a pointed question instead of believing a line said to the masses.

By: Robert

Robert — Wed, 26 Apr 2006 03:26:57 +0000

The only problem with this thesis is that it is not supported by the ball companies themselves. Erik was at the TaylorMade ball launch earlier this month and the head of R&D for the company said quite clearly to me that one of TM's challenges was to allow those with swing speeds of 80 miles per hour to get as much out of the ball as those that were swinging 120 miles per hour or more.

Since they are the ones designing the ball, I assume what Benoit Vincent is saying is actually the case, and it seems to contradict what is being said in this op-ed.

By: Golf Talk [Episode 020] | The Sand Trap

Golf Talk [Episode 020] | The Sand Trap — Sat, 22 Apr 2006 14:30:26 +0000

The post-Masters lull is only boring if you stop paying attention to golf altogether. We've got plenty to talk about!

By: Andy Greenwald

Andy Greenwald — Fri, 21 Apr 2006 19:43:23 +0000

Great article.

People have forgotten that Fred Funk won our 5th major last year. The TPC course rewards pinpoint accuracy in the fairway and green. There are some holes that reward distance as well, so that the approach shot is more manageable, but the course is definitely not overly long by any means. I think it is a very "fair" course.

The article is correct that lengthening courses is not helping the Funk's of the world. Lengthening may tip the scales more towards distance than accuracy. Courses should try to emphasize both facets equally in a perfect world, but they do not.

The USGA info was interesting, but looking at the last 4 years of major winners, the longer hitters have benefitted the most from course setups. Clearly the major winners (Tiger, Phil, Retief, Vijay, etc.) are also great iron players and great wedge players and at least good putters.

Looking at the top ten drivers and saying distance does not equal money is a mistake by Dick Rugge. It is probably impossible to judge exactly what value distance brings to players, but clearly the Big 5 can all hit the ball far.

I think Fred is just indicating that distance is more emphasized today than when he started, and looking at today's PGA Tour, most everyone would agree. More PGA courses should emphasize location in the fairway and greens more like the TPC.

People also forget that the ball improvement is just one factor in the increased distance. The shafts today are so much better and the club heads are also much better for generating trajectories and spin rates that are desired. These factors are not addressed in the USGA tests and could account for what Fred feels. I would give Fred the benefit of the doubt given how close he is to the day to day action.

By: NM Golf

NM Golf — Fri, 21 Apr 2006 17:52:51 +0000

I agree with everything you said. As the athletes in golf get better the ball will go farther.

Look at all professional sports. What you see today as opposed to yester year is bigger, faster, and stronger athletes. The game of football has changed dramatically and even though there have been huge changes in safety equipment, those changes cannot be blamed on how the game has evolved. The same is true for the NBA, and the equipment there has changed very little in the last 50 years but todays game is nothing like 50 years ago.

When taking a sport like golf where conditioning, flexibility, and strength training were not in existence 10 years ago, it would be impossible not to see huge increases in performance once those aspects are intoduced.

I feel for Fred but he's past his prime. It's time for him to go quietly into that goodnight or at least that other tour.

By: Jeff Gladchun

Jeff Gladchun — Fri, 21 Apr 2006 16:57:41 +0000

Its easy to understand where Fred is coming from. In today's age of Tiger-Proofing and lengthening all we're accomplishing is taking guys like Funk and Pavin out of the equation. Its also easy to understand how Funk could get really riled up over this issue especially if he thinks he's getting shafted.

It seems like every day there is a new article by some genius claiming that the golf apocalypse is upon us, but these claims are usually backed up by emotional or "empirical" thoughts instead of cold hard facts.

Sure, the players today are longer. Sports evolve. Thats what golf is doing.

Nice article, Erik.