USGA DISTANCE INSIGHT

[mahonie]

Absolutely massive difference in playability, durability and cost. Almost like playing 2 different games...you could throw a balata at a pin 25 yards away and get it to spin back 6’ with a crisp strike. Same shot with surlyn you’re looking at a bump and run. Catch the balata thin though and you’ve cut a nice smiley face in the cover.

[Ashley Schaeffer]

It’s funny you bring it up! A few days ago I was reading a NYT article from 1987 talking about the Tour Edition Norman used to win the 86 British Open. Tour Editions were even spinnier than balatas. I think it was called Ziniythane or something. Norman talked about the added spin gave him more accuracy and helped on the concrete greens in ‘86.

I remember finding a few Tour Editions way back, and they definitely made the short game a point and shoot endeavor on the greens I grew up on.

I never did notice much accuracy difference between Tour Balata 100s, Professional 90s, Strata, and Pro V1, all of which I played in competition at some point or another. The earlier balls made the game around the green easier for me, but the new ones go further. To this day, I’ll sometimes hit one that doesn’t check up when I’m short-sided and tell myself a TB 100 would’ve left me a tap in, haha. Getting old. I’ll be a roll-backer in 15 years, I’m sure!

[DFS PFD]

Interesting, I know I've heard of durability issues and knew the newer balls are longer but never would've guessed the degree of difference is so great! Might have to hunt a few down and see what it's like.

[DFS PFD]

Well now you have me wanting to try a few and see what the game is like with the old tech. How much shorter do you think the balata is overall vs a ProV for yourself?

[Lincoln_Arcadia]

Yes, many seemed to have forgotten.

One amendment to your statement is that ProV1 has more spin and less distance than many “distance” balls on the market. In that sense, it’s still bifurcated by swing speed.

Distance reduction would simply force more people to use shorter (spinner?) balls.

[QuigleyDU]

I think many live in a bit of a revisionist history. There have been many many test that show that balatas and tour professionals spin the same or less off wedges than modern day balls. They spun considerably more off the driver.

I think what many are remembering is how incredibly soft and fragile they were and how easy it was to knock them out of round or cut the cover with a thinned iron.

And yes, I am old enough to have played them all.

 

[Roadking2003]

Yes, balata balls were very easy to spin and very difficult to hit straight.

 

But that was not bifurcation. Amateurs and Pros used exactly the same equipment if they chose to.

[Roadking2003]

They also cut very easily and got out of round very easily.

[mahonie]

Difference in performance of balls today is not so marked as it was...it really was a ball for the good ball-strikers and another ball for the rest of us. If you think playing a round with a Penfold Ace was anything like playing the same game as you would with a Professional 90 you are badly mistaken.

[DFS PFD]

I agree it is definitely not representative of bifurcation, but could expose an already existing disparity in performance between tour players equipment they choose to play v average joe buying random cheap golf balls. But again, not bifurcation.

[QuigleyDU]

 

I don't know what a penfold ace is. But I am guessing it was some kind of hard ball. I can't see it being that much different from a Pinnacle Gold and a Prov1. Rock hard no spin ball, vs a tour ball that spins. We all just like to look at things in the past with rose colored glasses.

 

The difference is still very much there.

[Ashley Schaeffer]

Haha, c'mon, man. I agree we weren't (unintentionally in my case) spinning them up on a full wedge any more than we do with the balls today. But, if you clipped one correctly off the FW from 25 yards, it was stopping after the first hop. TP5x, not as much.

[QuigleyDU]

Maybe not with the TP5x, It is pretty low spinning. hahaha.

[Ashley Schaeffer]

Fair enough! And let's not lose sight of the fact that I 100% do NOT clip anything correctly anymore, so, it's not a fair test, haha.

[farmer]

I had a couple of sleeves of the Pro 90 in my bedroom closet, so I took one ball out to the barn to hit into a net. Five strikes with a driver, even with my modest SS, and the ball was visibly deformed. Balata balls could easily be ruined by something as prosaic as hitting a tree. A well hit balata with old forged irons like I learned with was about the best feeling you could get on a golf course. That said, they were terrible golf balls. No one now would tolerate that kind of fragility, and they were expensive. The second tier balls were TopFlite types or whatever Club Specials were made with. With the Tour Editions or a balata, a skilled player could nearly do trick shots around the green. I found the TE's to be nearly unplayable, and Norman had trouble with them spinning so much he couldn't keep one around the pin. I think I remember that TE's were not wound, so they might still be somewhat playable, but any wound ball from the day is dead.

[mahonie]

With a persimmon driver considerably shorter lol. With a modern driver, the distance wouldn’t be that different...if I was confident of swinging flat out and not losing it three fairways to the right...which I was not!!

With the modern ball I can swing flat out and keep it relatively straight and that is the main difference.

[mahonie]

I can’t get a modern ball to dance around the pin from close range like I could a balata. The spin off the driver or any of the straighter-faced clubs was the killer for me.

[mahonie]

‘Bifurcation under the radar’ then...perhaps there is too much leeway in the ball specifications that allows such a disparity in performance?

[mahonie]

Penfold Ace was a very soft, I want to say one-piece ball played by James Bond in Goldfinger. It went nowhere but didn’t spin either...unlike today’s distance balls which do travel.

Serious question, would you score the same if you had to play Pinnacles vs Pro V1?

[QuigleyDU]

Um, I think it would be relatively close. But, I would for sure have to take a different approach on some shots knowing there was going to be more roll out.

[QuigleyDU]

That could 100% be true. All I am saying is that the launch monitor numbers don’t show them to spin more.

[Lincoln_Arcadia]

I just played a round with a few 100s. They’re not that bad with my modern driver and 3W. They feel like they can go farther.

It’s more of a compression issue rather than off center hit or path issue? I tend to create marks bigger than an inch. Pro V1 and Balata are nearly the same to me and always have been. The only difference is blistering. Cuts are bad, but blistering happens during normal play.

No one in their right mind would go back to Balata for other reasons though. They’d likely be three times as expensive and last one hole each for the pros. Just not possible to go back to that.

[farmer]

With some practice, I think I could score within a couple of shots with a Pinnacle. Not going to put in the time, I fear the feel of hard balls, and with the deep rough around our greens, I would have to have a 62* or 64* wedge. Not going to put in the time for those, either.

[Lincoln_Arcadia]

I’ve done with Wilson limited flight. It’s about 6 strokes for me.

[QuigleyDU]

There was a mens college event a Pacific Dunes in Bandon. This seem to be the group that is consistently brought up. From what I have heard the conditions where ideal. There was not much wind and talking to a local college coach the course was very playable. The course plays at like 6600 yards.

The winning score was -5. It has been said many times that the score does not matter. But, it is really the only metric we have to go off of. Especially when you consider that this course is soo short.

 

[mahonie]

I’m guessing that the technology is there to be able to replicate the characteristics of a balata ball but with added durability? Then could we have a higher spinning ball with no relative distance reduction (if you hit the ball well), but at the same time, a ball that takes a lot more skill to keep on the straight and narrow? Excessive deviations of club face to path are punished appropriately? Probably looking for a ?

[smashdn]

Is the challenge there not mostly the greens and approaching the greens due to the greens? That is kind of Doak's MO.

[QuigleyDU]

Soooo, a good design can stand up to distance?

[smashdn]

There is something in the R&D trash bin at a golf ball manufacturers that has to be along these lines. They know the characteristics that create spin and they know how thick to make the layers and which layers of material need to be where to get X characteristic from Y swing speed with a given club. How else do you come up with a ball that doesn't spin much (relatively) off the driver but still has ample spin to control with wedges?

If you wanted to reduce spin with wedges we all here know how to do it. Change the cover and outer mantle. If we wanted to add spin to a driver shot we know how to do it. Add compressability to the inner layers so it stays on the club face longer at higher swing speeds.

There is no doubt in my mind the golf ball makers know how to make a harder to control golf ball for high swing speed players.

[smashdn]

My opinion would be that Doak attempts to make courses playable for all levels of golfer. Especially true for a resort course. Golfers of all abilities (generally) can control a putter and hit a 100 yard shot someway somehow. Not all golfers can hit or control a 300 yard shot when facing wind and fairway hazards.

 

I would bet that you could take a wide range of handicaps to Pac Dunes, say between +2 and 10, and the scores would not be all that far apart. That was my point. Most of the challenge at that course is found in the approach to the green and the green. You can bunt it to a safe spot in the fairway and not hurt yourself you just may not be on the easiest line to access a spot on the green.

 

If you are thinking this is the answer for a PGA Tour event I don't think it is, and I really respect Doak and his designs. The PGA guys don't have to worry as much about angles. They'd drive it where it is safe-ish as far down there as they can. And would probably gripe about the crazy greens.

 

To directly answer your question, there is nothing in the designer's arsenal that will stand up to current distance that would not make a course damn near unplayable for anything above a 10 capper. It is not just distance but also the result of distance. This will sound plain and dumb but driving it further results in a shorter second shot. That neuters, at times, even interesting green challenges.