distance debate

[ThinkingPlus]

7 minutes ago, smashdn said:

 

Why do so many swing instructors say that then?

Instructors say many things.  Some are right.  Some not so much or they have targeted their response to a particular audience for effect. 

 

Current urethane balls spin less than the old balata balls by 10% - 20% depending on who you believe.  That makes it harder, but obviously not impossible, to move the current ball (draws and cuts) than the old ball designs.  Kind of a moot point given that going back to a balata covered ball is a non-starter in so many ways.

[clevited]

21 minutes ago, ThinkingPlus said:

Instructors say many things.  Some are right.  Some not so much or they have targeted their response to a particular audience for effect. 

 

Current urethane balls spin less than the old balata balls by 10% - 20% depending on who you believe.  That makes it harder, but obviously not impossible, to move the current ball (draws and cuts) than the old ball designs.  Kind of a moot point given that going back to a balata covered ball is a non-starter in so many ways.

 

Kirklands might be the closest thing to balata spin wise I have come across.  They are stupid spinny for my swing.  PW 10-12k RPM with Kirkland vs my usual Snell which tends to be more like 8-10k.  I don't find them to be all that much more curvy with anything, but you can sure get some insane backspin with the short sticks.

[ThinkingPlus]

4 minutes ago, clevited said:

 

Kirklands might be the closest thing to balata spin wise I have come across.  They are stupid spinny for my swing.  PW 10-12k RPM with Kirkland vs my usual Snell which tends to be more like 8-10k.  I don't find them to be all that much more curvy with anything, but you can sure get some insane backspin with the short sticks.

MGS backs up your results.  Their tests showed the latest Kirkland ball to be the spinniest on the market.  They called it a niche product because it spun so much.  LOL!

[smashdn]

16 minutes ago, ThinkingPlus said:

Instructors say many things.  Some are right.  Some not so much or they have targeted their response to a particular audience for effect. 

 

Current urethane balls spin less than the old balata balls by 10% - 20% depending on who you believe.  That makes it harder, but obviously not impossible, to move the current ball (draws and cuts) than the old ball designs.  Kind of a moot point given that going back to a balata covered ball is a non-starter in so many ways.

 

I agree with most everything you said.  

 

Using a player (and one of the few) that really does try to move the ball left and and right and vary trajectory is not making a good point.  JT is an outlier in that regard.

 

I have found that instructors and those writing about golf form an improvement standpoint tend to point out that professional players tend to have a "stock shape" and play that shape more often than not.  And there are outliers on that end of the spectrum too.  Players who truly do not attempt to move the ball opposite their natural tendency or shape.  If a shot calls for a 5 yard draw and they fade the ball, they just hit a fade and deal with it.

 

That being said I also think that is partly instructor speak as well in an attempt to get amateurs to A) not fight their natural tendency and B) not waste time and effort trying to work the ball both ways at the risk of boogering up their swing completely.

 

----

 

Regarding the topic of this thread, I wouldn't add back in spin to the ball unless it was a bifurcation scenario and they created a "tour ball."   If it was neutered across the board then no, don't worry with spin at all.

[smashdn]

Just now, ThinkingPlus said:

MGS backs up your results.  Their tests showed the latest Kirkland ball to be the spinniest on the market.  They called it a niche product because it spun so much.  LOL!

 

Iron spin or driver spin?  I could use more wedge and iron spin but no more driver spin.  I am playing the AVX mostly now with modern clubs.  I can't seem to find Chrome Softs or I would play those too.

[ThinkingPlus]

1 minute ago, smashdn said:

 

I agree with most everything you said.  

 

Using a player (and one of the few) that really does try to move the ball left and and right and vary trajectory is not making a good point.  JT is an outlier in that regard.

 

I have found that instructors and those writing about golf form an improvement standpoint tend to point out that professional players tend to have a "stock shape" and play that shape more often than not.  And there are outliers on that end of the spectrum too.  Players who truly do not attempt to move the ball opposite their natural tendency or shape.  If a shot calls for a 5 yard draw and they fade the ball, they just hit a fade and deal with it.

 

That being said I also think that is partly instructor speak as well in an attempt to get amateurs to A) not fight their natural tendency and B) not waste time and effort trying to work the ball both ways at the risk of boogering up their swing completely.

 

----

 

Regarding the topic of this thread, I wouldn't add back in spin to the ball unless it was a bifurcation scenario and they created a "tour ball."   If it was neutered across the board then no, don't worry with spin at all.

They really can't add spin.  They can only remove some of the compression dependent spin dampening that removes some spin for certain clubs/swing speeds.

[ThinkingPlus]

2 minutes ago, smashdn said:

 

Iron spin or driver spin?  I could use more wedge and iron spin but no more driver spin.  I am playing the AVX mostly now with modern clubs.  I can't seem to find Chrome Softs or I would play those too.

Just spin.  Across the board pretty much.  MGS specifically makes comments that spinny balls are more so for all clubs than non-spinny balls.  Firmer balls spin more than soft ones.  Need spin -> firm ball.  Softer balls just aren't going to spin as much.

[oikos1]

2 hours ago, smashdn said:

Using a player (and one of the few) that really does try to move the ball left and and right and vary trajectory is not making a good point.  JT is an outlier in that regard.

Surely you jest.  JT is an outlier for working the ball?

 

Lol.  I would've thought you'd go with Bubba on that one.

 

 

But seriously, if you think working the ball on the PGA Tour is an outlier, we may be watching different Tours.

 

It may not be as prominent as it was 30 years ago, but there is no question pros, and plenty of ams, still work the ball, left/right, high low.

[clevited]

32 minutes ago, oikos1 said:

Surely you jest.  JT is an outlier for working the ball?

 

Lol.  I would've thought you'd go with Bubba on that one.

 

 

But seriously, if you think working the ball on the PGA Tour is an outlier, we may be watching different Tours.

 

It may not be as prominent as it was 30 years ago, but there is no question pros, and plenty of ams, still work the ball, left/right, high low.

 

I think pro's learned that utilizing a stock shot shape is a more reliable way to score well and most only shape it when absolutely needed.  No matter how good you are, shaping a shot is not the percentage play imo.  It is too easy to overcook it or undercook it regardless of talent level.  Strategy evolved to eliminate low percentage shots, but it doesn't mean some don't like to do it anyways.  It sometimes helps them a lot, other times it gets them in trouble.  Bubba and JT are solid examples of that.  They show the ball can easily be shaped but they also show it isn't always the best thing to do when it gets them into trouble.  

[The Mad Bomber]

10 hours ago, ThinkingPlus said:

Just spin.  Across the board pretty much.  MGS specifically makes comments that spinny balls are more so for all clubs than non-spinny balls.  Firmer balls spin more than soft ones.  Need spin -> firm ball.  Softer balls just aren't going to spin as much.

MGS isn’t the be all, end all of golf research though. There are really firm balls out there that just don’t spin - the Left Dash is a prime example. Firmer than ProV1 or V1x, but lower spinning. I picked up almost 10 yards of carry with it.

[ThinkingPlus]

13 minutes ago, The Mad Bomber said:

MGS isn’t the be all, end all of golf research though. There are really firm balls out there that just don’t spin - the Left Dash is a prime example. Firmer than ProV1 or V1x, but lower spinning. I picked up almost 10 yards of carry with it.

Yes you can get firm balls that are less spinny. I should have said that firm balls can be spinny, but soft balls not so much.  The MGS testing is pretty thorough and does show the Left Dash as a lower spinning option.

[Fairways_and_Greens]

20 hours ago, ThinkingPlus said:

Just spin.  Across the board pretty much.  MGS specifically makes comments that spinny balls are more so for all clubs than non-spinny balls.  Firmer balls spin more than soft ones.  Need spin -> firm ball.  Softer balls just aren't going to spin as much.

It used to be the opposite just 6-10 years ago. I’d love to talk with the engineers why that happened. If it’s intentional or a byproduct of optimizing some other aspect.
 

It’s also not always the case that firm balls spin more. Titleist’s lowest spinning ball is the left dash, and it’s also the firmest. The 2019 TP5X was much firmer and lower spin than the TP5, so much so that many of their X staffers went to the softer ball. 
 

What remains absolutely true is that firm balls are faster. My theory is make their balls more competitive, they are purposely making the soft balls spin less… so that even at a lower exit speed, the softer ball carrys more. 
 

maybe @Snell Golf can offer some wisdom. 

[Fairways_and_Greens]

10 hours ago, ThinkingPlus said:

Yes you can get firm balls that are less spinny. I should have said that firm balls can be spinny, but soft balls not so much.  The MGS testing is pretty thorough and does show the Left Dash as a lower spinning option.

One of the spiniest balls I remember is the maxfli revolution. I think the very softest balls are targeted towards slower swingers, which are usually golfers with an open clubface and spinning it already. 

[Fairways_and_Greens]

Making the ball spin more would be very temporary. The engineers would instantly respond with deeper dimples that have less drag. The only things I can think of that punish longer hits disproportionately to shorter is ball weight and diameter. 

[clevited]

3 minutes ago, Fairways_and_Greens said:

Making the ball spin more would be very temporary. The engineers would instantly respond with deeper dimples that have less drag. The only things I can think of that punish longer hits disproportionately to shorter is ball weight and diameter. 

 

You aren't suggesting that be what they do are you?  Hope not, that would be insanely unfair.  Initial ball velocity would be the only fair way to do it imo.

[Fairways_and_Greens]

28 minutes ago, clevited said:

 

You aren't suggesting that be what they do are you?  Hope not, that would be insanely unfair.  Initial ball velocity would be the only fair way to do it imo.

Ball diameter and weight have been changed in the past. Was it unfair then?

[clevited]

55 minutes ago, Fairways_and_Greens said:

Ball diameter and weight have been changed in the past. Was it unfair then?

 

I don't care about the past, I care about now.  It would be unfair now if it effects the faster player disproportionately more.

[Fairways_and_Greens]

7 hours ago, clevited said:

 

I don't care about the past, I care about now.  It would be unfair now if it effects the faster player disproportionately more.

Like life, golf is not supposed to be fair. That is what makes it great.
 

Ideally, it would get less fair the more aggressively you play. 

[buckeyefl]

On 8/9/2022 at 11:08 AM, smashdn said:

 

Why do so many swing instructors say that then?

 

What instructors and what do they say?

[clevited]

6 hours ago, Fairways_and_Greens said:

Like life, golf is not supposed to be fair. That is what makes it great.
 

Ideally, it would get less fair the more aggressively you play. 

 

It should not get disproportionately less fair for the more athletic player.  It already is naturally unfair as the further you hit the ball the more precise with everything you have to be.  Making the ball effectively act like a wiffle ball for the faster player would be a horrific thing to do.  The game is fine.  What you suggest is insanity. 

[Nard_S]

The distance issue hits home. The range I frequent banned drivers on upper deck even though net is 245 out and 75-100 feet high. Range balls apparently clear it. So lame.

 

 

"Johnny bought a new driver".

 

too bad he cannot even swing it at a DRIVING range.

 

[trilerian]

2 hours ago, Nard_S said:

The distance issue hits home. The range I frequent banned drivers on upper deck even though net is 245 out and 75-100 feet high. Range balls apparently clear it. So lame.

 

 

"Johnny bought a new driver".

 

too bad he cannot even swing it at a DRIVING range.

 

 

You mean "Johnny bought a new driver", too bad he can only hit it from the lower deck at this short driving range.  

 

Talk about making an issue out of nothing.  

[Nard_S]

18 minutes ago, trilerian said:

 

You mean "Johnny bought a new driver", too bad he can only hit it from the lower deck at this short driving range.  

 

Talk about making an issue out of nothing.  

The range is maxed out on capacity. You wait for a spot on either deck.It's gotten ridiculous, #7i for 200 yards but they need 50 yards of dispersion because of the 75g shafts and bulbous heads at 24 degrees. Game is screwed.

[smashdn]

On 8/9/2022 at 2:20 PM, clevited said:

 

I think pro's learned that utilizing a stock shot shape is a more reliable way to score well and most only shape it when absolutely needed.  No matter how good you are, shaping a shot is not the percentage play imo.  It is too easy to overcook it or undercook it regardless of talent level.  Strategy evolved to eliminate low percentage shots, but it doesn't mean some don't like to do it anyways.  It sometimes helps them a lot, other times it gets them in trouble.  Bubba and JT are solid examples of that.  They show the ball can easily be shaped but they also show it isn't always the best thing to do when it gets them into trouble.  

 

 

That's what the instructors and teachers are saying/writing.

[trilerian]

8 minutes ago, Nard_S said:

The range is maxed out on capacity. You wait for a spot on either deck.It's gotten ridiculous, #7i for 200 yards but they need 50 yards of dispersion because of the 75g shafts and bulbous heads at 24 degrees. Game is screwed.

Ok...  Yeah it sucks waiting on a bay to be able to hit your driver.  What can you do, it's a short range.  Go tell the owners to use limited flight balls.

 

Not sure where you are going with the 7i.  SGI clubs are good for high handicappers, they allow them to move the ball forwardish, lol, so at least they are closer to the hole on their next shot on the way to double par.  Put them in a set of forged blades and instead they hit it 50 yards forward.  Do you really want to wait on that?

[trilerian]

13 minutes ago, smashdn said:

 

 

That's what the instructors and teachers are saying/writing.

 

Personally I go against instructor wisdom here.  I like working the ball both right and left.  I'm not quite proficient flighting it yet, still working on it.  I like to work the ball to the shape of the hole, or to left or right pins.  Does it backfire, yep, and it is harder to do out of the rough, but when I hit one the way I want to it is very rewarding, and when I don't, well, I guess I have a challenge to get up and down.  

[smashdn]

8 minutes ago, trilerian said:

 

Personally I go against instructor wisdom here.  I like working the ball both right and left.  I'm not quite proficient flighting it yet, still working on it.  I like to work the ball to the shape of the hole, or to left or right pins.  Does it backfire, yep, and it is harder to do out of the rough, but when I hit one the way I want to it is very rewarding, and when I don't, well, I guess I have a challenge to get up and down.  

 

I do too.  I think it is part of the game and you can't really say you are proficient as a golfer until you can move it on command more or less.  I impressed a guy the other day with a recovery shot from in behind some trees.  Bent it around the trees and onto the green with a big fade.

 

I impressed myself the other day with a low running draw from under a tree on another hole.  Ran it right onto the fringe.

 

That being said, I get why the instructors advise to pick a shot shape and go with it.  Especially off the tee, you can eliminate trouble on one side.  Good architecture however can have you in a bind with your next shot if you always play away from trouble.

[Double Mocha Man]

1 hour ago, smashdn said:

I impressed a guy the other day with a recovery shot from in behind some trees.  Bent it around the trees and onto the green with a big fade.

 

I impressed myself the other day with a low running draw from under a tree on another hole.  Ran it right onto the fringe.

 

Yes, but what are you doing in the trees in the first place?  😁

[trilerian]

25 minutes ago, Double Mocha Man said:

 

Yes, but what are you doing in the trees in the first place?  😁

 

It's those new fangled toaster on stick drivers!  Can't get any accuracy off the tee with them!

[Krt22]

30 minutes ago, Double Mocha Man said:

 

Yes, but what are you doing in the trees in the first place?  😁

 

3 minutes ago, trilerian said:

 

It's those new fangled toaster on stick drivers!  Can't get any accuracy off the tee with them!

They are supposed to be stupid easy, point and shoot