The Golf Ball "Problem": PGA Tour Players Hitting it Far is a Problem for All of Golf?

[Lihu]

Just now, DeadMan said:

@Lihu: Look at the same report, page 16. Launch conditions have remained virtually the same since 2007, except for a reduction in spin. 4 years after Trackman started (and Trackman wasn't a huge thing on tour that quickly), players were already launching it close to ideally. My guess is that players were already close to optimal launch conditions Optimizing launch conditions that are already close to optimal is not going to give someone 20 yards. The other point is: how did players suddenly start optimizing their launch conditions without trackman or data like it? It didn't exist in 1990.

It is mostly the ball and driver technology. Figure 1 on that report makes it pretty obvious in my opinion. Other things probably contributed a little, but it's mostly the ball and driver.

The fact that you can sometimes hit a 3 wood from 1980 as far as your current hybrid is anecdotal and irrelevant to the overall point. You are going down a rabbit hole with zero evidence for it. To make a point that is incomprehensible.

The only jump I see is 7 yards coincident with the introduction of these new balls.

Like I stated earlier, the jump would realistically be within a year for it to really be the introduction of low spin balls. I doubt a professional is going to leave 7 yards on the table for even one season.

[lastings]

10 minutes ago, Lihu said:

First of all it went from around 262 to a hair over 272 or 10 to 11 yards, secondly those don't look like large leaps.

I'll grant that distances increased a little bit at a time during that era. From what I understand though, fitting technology also improved during that time frame. It might be that that contributed to the slower gains during those 6 years?

Regardless the club is not what is being cited as the problem, it's the ball, and I don't see more than 7 yards gain from the ball.

fair enough.   but a couple things.   

1) there may not be a problem at all.   plenty of evidence was presented to me earlier in the thread to the contrary. 

2) I'm pretty sure it was agreed upon that there was a 13-yard jump from 2000-2002 that could be attributed to the golf ball. 

Edited January 23, 2018 by lastings

[Lihu]

Just now, lastings said:

fair enough.   but a couple things.   

1) there may not be a problem at all.   plenty of evidence was presented to me earlier in the thread to the contrary. 

2) I'm pretty sure it was agreed upon that there was a 13-yard just from 2000-2002 that could be attributed to the golf ball. 

Sure, and some of that 13 yards could be from the newer club technology as well.

I think the only way to really prove it is to do an experiment that runs through all the technology over the years and seeing where the biggest jumps are in the data.

This sounds like a job for "Rick Shiels". . .

[DeadMan]

9 minutes ago, Lihu said:

The only jump I see is 7 yards coincident with the introduction of these new balls.

Like I stated earlier, the jump would realistically be within a year for it to really be the introduction of low spin balls. I doubt a professional is going to leave 7 yards on the table for even one season.

1. Sponsorships may have prevented some pros from using it, since Titleist was the only manufacturer making the new ball at first.
2. Distance balls were already a thing, but you sacrificed control around and into the greens for it. The revolutionary aspect of the new ball was the urethane cover, which gave you control around and into the greens. Tour pros were already giving up distance in exchange for control.
3. Tour pros are set in their ways, which is why they take the flagstick out when they're off the green, use less drivers off the tee than they should, etc., etc.

Edited January 23, 2018 by DeadMan

[lastings]

9 minutes ago, Lihu said:

Sure, and some of that 13 yards could be from the newer club technology as well.

could..   but not much.   As was discussed about clubs from '94-2000 we saw three iterations of callaway add a total of 12-13 distance.   That is around an additional 4 yards per iteration.   and when you are talking about going from original Big Bertha to Biggest Big Bertha, you are looking at pretty huge leaps in tech.   But, even if that next iteration provided another 4 yards, you're still looking at 9-10 yds attributed to the ball.  

edit note: I don't mean to single out Callaway as the only provider of advanced tech.   obviously their competitors were keeping up.   I just mention them because they were the most popular at the time.  

 

Edited January 23, 2018 by lastings

[Keep It Simple]

This is an interesting article.  The commentator in the video also mentions it at 0:35.

http://ftw.usatoday.com/2014/08/jack-nicklaus-long-drive-pga-championship-louis-oosthuizen-bubba-watson

 

 

[iacas]

To be clear, @lastings, I think @Lihu is on an island here in what he's arguing.

Longer, lighter, larger drivers along with a Pinnacle that spins is by far the most important thing to account for player distance.

Players are more fit these days, but speed is not really about fitness, per se. They are more athletic so that they have endurance, are in better health overall, etc. Speed is not something you can really "train" to have.

Now, longer, lighter, larger drivers and a ball that curves less off the driver also allow players to swing a bit harder. But how you apportion that to player fitness and equipment is the only wiggle room I see for @Lihu's position.

@Lihu, you're not arguing the proper, correct position at all, IMO. I'd suggest quitting while you're behind.

1 hour ago, lastings said:

This is an argument that I just can’t get behind. I have a hard time believing that John Daly or Fred Couples are more athletic today than they were in the ‘90s, but they’re both driving the ball quite a bit further. 

Players in general are more athletic, but it's not entirely about speed. Endurance, etc.

51 minutes ago, lastings said:

If this is the case, and I don't really know if it is or isn't..    Than The suggestions of 20 yards attributed to ball and club, matches up pretty well again. 

Again, in '95 Daly was averaging 289, Couples averaging 276.  

in 2005, Daly averaged 310 (+21), Couples averaged 296 (+20)

If it was just the equipment, they'd be +20, but then their age would have them down a few yards, too, so they too have likely gained some yardage via fitness and optimized launch, etc.

---

So here's the thing… let's say you roll the equipment back to 1997 standards. Guess what? All current equipment would conform.

And that's if you can get people to accept that there's a "problem" to begin with… which this poll indicates you'd have a hard time doing.

[Lihu]

17 minutes ago, lastings said:

could..   but not much.   As was discussed about clubs from '94-2000 we saw three iterations of callaway add a total of 12-13 distance.   That is around an additional 4 yards per iteration.   and when you are talking about going from original Big Bertha to Biggest Big Bertha, you are looking at pretty huge leaps in tech.   But, even if that next iteration provided another 4 yards, you're still looking at 9-10 yds attributed to the ball.  

edit note: I don't mean to single out Callaway as the only provider of advanced tech.   obviously their competitors were keeping up.   I just mention them because they were the most popular at the time.  

 

True, the argument that there are more athletic players holds in this case as well.

Those who are able to find the center of the ball at a lower swind speed will now be at a disadvantage to someone who is not quite as accurate but can swing much faster because of more forgiving clubs.

Back on topic, I still don’t see how a change in ball technology that gives you up to 10 yards could take more than a year to adopt? Makes no sense.

Edited January 23, 2018 by Lihu

[iacas]

1 minute ago, Lihu said:

True, the argument that there are more athletic players holds in this case as well.

Dude… c'mon.

1 minute ago, Lihu said:

I still don’t see how a change in ball technology that gives you up to 10 yards could take more than a year to adopt? Makes no sense.

It makes plenty of sense. You have players right now that are still playing a ball from eight years ago because it's what they're used to. And, not everyone plays the same ball, so if a Titleist makes a big jump, that won't matter to Callaway staffers, TaylorMade staffers, etc.

Just stop, @Lihu. You've been defeated in this one.

The gains are primarily from equipment. Pretty much fact.

[lastings]

5 minutes ago, Lihu said:

Back on topic, I still don’t see how a change in ball technology that gives you up to 10 yards could take more than a year to adopt? Makes no sense.

according to this article, at the beginning of 2000 Tiger was playing a solid core Nike Ball.   By October of 2000, only 47 players were using solid core balls.  

So, in year one, only 25% of the tour were using them.   It doesn't say how many switched in 2001, but if I had to guess I'd say it was up to 75% by the end of 2001, and the final 25% followed suit in 2002.

http://www.golf.com/equipment/titleist-pro-v1-golf-ball-first-appeared-2000

[Lihu]

30 minutes ago, lastings said:

according to this article, at the beginning of 2000 Tiger was playing a solid core Nike Ball.   By October of 2000, only 47 players were using solid core balls.  

So, in year one, only 25% of the tour were using them.   It doesn't say how many switched in 2001, but if I had to guess I'd say it was up to 75% by the end of 2001, and the final 25% followed suit in 2002.

http://www.golf.com/equipment/titleist-pro-v1-golf-ball-first-appeared-2000

Yes, I suppose the technology was going through a steep transition during those years.

Seems like things kind of settled 16 years ago in 2002.

So, my next question is why were the authorities so slow to notice and advocate changes only now?

Edited January 23, 2018 by Lihu

[lastings]

1 minute ago, Lihu said:

 

So, my next question is why were the authorities so slow to notice and advocate changes only now?

Everyone was too busy watching Tiger dominate to care about anyone else or notice a change in golf as a whole?  

[Lihu]

1 minute ago, lastings said:

Everyone was too busy watching Tiger dominate to care about anyone else or notice a change in golf as a whole?  

Sigh, probably. . . 

I'm so glad I work for a technology company that actually reacts properly to rapid changes in technology.

[DeadMan]

5 minutes ago, Lihu said:

So, my next question is why were the authorities so slow to notice and advocate changes only now?

The USGA and R&A aren't advocating changes. Most the people advocating changes are golf journalists and golf fans who have become obsessed with golden age golf design.

[Lihu]

2 minutes ago, DeadMan said:

The USGA and R&A aren't advocating changes. Most the people advocating changes are golf journalists and golf fans who have become obsessed with golden age golf design.

That ship has kind of sailed, after over 1 and a half decades of status quo, it really makes no sense any more?

[saevel25]

1 hour ago, Lihu said:

So, my next question is why were the authorities so slow to notice and advocate changes only now?

Players are slow to change. Why change when you do not see an issue?

The USGA was quick enough to put a limit on the driver in the early 2000's. The real advancement has come with the following,

• Aerodynamics
• Golf shaft design
• CG location manipulation
• Golf ball advancement in cover and core
• Golf fitting
• I am probably missing a few

The big ones for the Tour players are golf fitting, and anything that helps with higher launch and lower spin.

I remember when low 3000 rpm was a great spin rate for a driver. It wasn't until the SLDR, and it's super low and forward CG, that a driver finally came out that fit high swing speeds. For fast swing speeds you were looking at sub 9 degree drivers.

Now you see drivers that allow higher swing speeds use a low to medium launching golf shaft and 10-13 degree driver lofts. When you can get 12+ launch angle and maintain sub 2500 rpm spin rates, that is a recipe for optimal distance.

Golfers were never hitting the ball optimally. That isn't a golf issue, it's good that golfers are applying better concepts. In the end, the USGA still limits how fast the golf ball can come off the driver face. The rest is just optimization.

[SG11118]

I also think golf course maintenance can be attributed to a percentage of the increase in distance.  Fairways on the pro tours seem to be cut very tight these days (and possibly even rolled occasionally) - leading to some extra roll.

[Pretzel]

2 hours ago, SG11118 said:

I also think golf course maintenance can be attributed to a percentage of the increase in distance.  Fairways on the pro tours seem to be cut very tight these days (and possibly even rolled occasionally) - leading to some extra roll.

Compared to the municipal-esque carpets that pros used to play and putt on, I'd agree that tight mown fairways are probably good for another 5 yards or so.