USGA and R&A announce proposal to limit golf ball performance for elite level competition

[MattC555]

 

32 minutes ago, smashdn said:

 

Isn't that bolded part the crux though?  If we start talking about urethane covers and spin we are bringing up a characteristic that as far as I know will not be changed with the ball rollback.

 

We are talking about two different aspects of golf ball performance here, distance and then holding a green.  Are we saying that a slight rollback of the distance the ball goes is also going to make it harder to hold a green (from the same distance away)?

 

---

 

And here I was digging the Chrome Softs with my persimmons.  I even was playing them with my modern clubs and wasn't hating the performance.  I could tell the distance was way different than a ProV1 or AVX.  I eventually settled on some Vice ball with a urethane cover, mainly due to availability and price.  Want to say they were like 35 bucks from walmarks and I was in there anyway for something.

 

I posted the link not to support a rollback position, it is data to show you which ball is most likely best for your and virtually everyone else's game.  With regards to persimmon, I think a lot of people used softer compression balls to limit damage to the clubs.  The AVX at 77 compression might be a good choice.  Vice makes a nice ball.  I believe they are cheapest when ordered DTC from their website FWIW. 

[smashdn]

23 minutes ago, radiman said:

But, we don't even know how the restriction is going to be implemented yet.  Whether it's purely aerodynamics, compression, or spin.  

 

We don't know how the advances are created either until they are.

 

Just me spit-balling, but I would do it with compression so you keep flight and how it behaves on the green the same.  I would think it a tough sell to consumer that for your compliant ball you made it spin more to the point good golfers are ripping them off greens and bad golfers are spinning them two fairways over.

[smashdn]

8 minutes ago, farmer said:

"But, we don't even know how the restriction is going to be implemented yet."  That sentence embodies the problem the RB's have created.  I suppose that in the interest of "growing the game", the RB's have created a vast swamp of speculation and misinformation.

 

Baloney.

 

If the ball from ten or fifteen years ago complied, then there is a starting point for the OEM's to go to.  They don't trash that knowledge as the design changes and the performance progresses.  They know how the sauce is made and can replicate it.  Companies today make reduced flight balls.  Just as ball companies could make balls that surpass the current limits.

[betarhoalphadelta]

57 minutes ago, smashdn said:

 

We are talking about two different aspects of golf ball performance here, distance and then holding a green.  Are we saying that a slight rollback of the distance the ball goes is also going to make it harder to hold a green (from the same distance away)?

 

 

Nobody knows. The available balls that currently conform to the proposed specifications are likely marshmallows that don't spin much. And yes, those balls it IS much harder to hold a green from the same distance. 

 

But what the new ball will be and how they meet the new spec is a complete unknown. You have to think that the OEMs are going to create a ball that spins, because Tour players won't stand for playing something that doesn't perform. But it's very possible [speculating here] that spin rates across the industry will go down if they need to bring down compression to meet the new ODS. If that's the case, then yes, holding greens will be more difficult. 

 

But again, that's speculation until we actually see how the new balls that conform to the ODS perform. Nobody (including the RBs) has a clue. 

[betarhoalphadelta]

16 minutes ago, smashdn said:

 

Baloney.

 

If the ball from ten or fifteen years ago complied, then there is a starting point for the OEM's to go to.  They don't trash that knowledge as the design changes and the performance progresses.  They know how the sauce is made and can replicate it.  Companies today make reduced flight balls.  Just as ball companies could make balls that surpass the current limits.

 

Do you really believe the ball has been getting longer progressively over the past 21 years? IMHO that's marketing BS from the OEMs. 

 

They may have changed some characteristics of the ball over that time, but ever since the ODS was implemented I'm quite sure that the engineers at the ball OEMs were designing balls that would come up JUUUUUST inside that limit. I'm sure that ten or fifteen years ago they ALSO knew how to make balls that surpass the limits, so there was nothing stopping them from keeping the ball just inside the limits.

[ThinkingPlus]

23 minutes ago, smashdn said:

 

We don't know how the advances are created either until they are.

 

Just me spit-balling, but I would do it with compression so you keep flight and how it behaves on the green the same.  I would think it a tough sell to consumer that for your compliant ball you made it spin more to the point good golfers are ripping them off greens and bad golfers are spinning them two fairways over.

They can't really make balls much more spinny than they are. It's a material limitation. Going back to balata is a complete non-starter due to durability, availability, and cost. The eco-terrorists would probably get involved as well.

[smashdn]

12 minutes ago, ThinkingPlus said:

They can't really make balls much more spinny than they are. It's a material limitation. Going back to balata is a complete non-starter due to durability, availability, and cost. The eco-terrorists would probably get involved as well.

 

Dimple patterns affect spin.

[betarhoalphadelta]

10 minutes ago, smashdn said:

 

Dimple patterns affect spin.

 

I don't believe that's true. Dimple patterns affect aerodynamics and ball flight, but I don't think they affect spin. 

[smashdn]

14 minutes ago, betarhoalphadelta said:

 

Do you really believe the ball has been getting longer progressively over the past 21 years? IMHO that's marketing BS from the OEMs. 

 

Are you asking is every iteration they come out with longer than the previous or are you asking do I believe that the current prov1 is longer than the prov1 of ca2003?

 

No I do not think every iteration is substantively longer than the last.  But I do believe that the ball today is longer than ones around 2000.  Graph that difference in length using the beginning and the end and it would be a linear gain year over year.  Practically that isn't how it works though.

 

Someone posted the MGS ball test stuff.  I was trying to go back and look at years past.  I googled and came across 2021 and compared it to 2023.  ProV1 Left dash was longest but there was quite a difference in total distance.  I will add the caveat, I do not know and cannot confirm if all variables were kept the same between those years.  

 

329.76 in 2021 compared to 348.00 in 2023.

 

14 minutes ago, betarhoalphadelta said:

They may have changed some characteristics of the ball over that time, but ever since the ODS was implemented I'm quite sure that the engineers at the ball OEMs were designing balls that would come up JUUUUUST inside that limit. I'm sure that ten or fifteen years ago they ALSO knew how to make balls that surpass the limits, so there was nothing stopping them from keeping the ball just inside the limits.

 

See above regarding the testing.  I will have to revisit when I have time and try to find the MGS results from years prior to 2021 to compare.

[Pnwpingi210]

4 minutes ago, betarhoalphadelta said:

 

I don't believe that's true. Dimple patterns affect aerodynamics and ball flight, but I don't think they affect spin. 

True.  Dimples will have an effect on lift and drag, which can influence the distance the ball will travel.

[smashdn]

4 minutes ago, betarhoalphadelta said:

 

I don't believe that's true. Dimple patterns affect aerodynamics and ball flight, but I don't think they affect spin. 

 

You don't think the relative roughness or smoothness of the outside of a spin has an impact on how fast it rotates?  i am speaking of spin in terms of ball flight.  I don't think you can separate them.  Backspin keeps the ball in the air.  Too much back spin causes it to balloon.  Optimizing back spin to the degree you need but not too much stabilizes straight flight while not being overly penal if you get some side spin in there.

[Simpsonia]

7 minutes ago, betarhoalphadelta said:

 

I don't believe that's true. Dimple patterns affect aerodynamics and ball flight, but I don't think they affect spin. 

 

As I understand it, it doesn't affect peak spin, but it would have a far greater affect on spin decay. The faster spin decay would mean a shorter and potentially straighter ball, depending on how greatly spin decayed over the flight time. 

[MattC555]

4 minutes ago, smashdn said:

 

Are you asking is every iteration they come out with longer than the previous or are you asking do I believe that the current prov1 is longer than the prov1 of ca2003?

 

No I do not think every iteration is substantively longer than the last.  But I do believe that the ball today is longer than ones around 2000.  Graph that difference in length using the beginning and the end and it would be a linear gain year over year.  Practically that isn't how it works though.

 

Someone posted the MGS ball test stuff.  I was trying to go back and look at years past.  I googled and came across 2021 and compared it to 2023.  ProV1 Left dash was longest but there was quite a difference in total distance.  I will add the caveat, I do not know and cannot confirm if all variables were kept the same between those years.  

 

329.76 in 2021 compared to 348.00 in 2023.

 

 

See above regarding the testing.  I will have to revisit when I have time and try to find the MGS results from years prior to 2021 to compare.

 

This comparison is worth watching, 2000 vs 2020 Pro V1.  It includes using the balls outside and hitting on a monitor, as well as cutting the balls in half to see the visual differences in construction.

 

 

[MattC555]

20 minutes ago, betarhoalphadelta said:

 

I don't believe that's true. Dimple patterns affect aerodynamics and ball flight, but I don't think they affect spin. 

 

I don't believe they affect static spin rate at impact.  They will affect dynamic spin decay due to variable drag coefficients.  This would also affect static spin rate at carry distance, which would influence the ability to hold greens. 

Edited March 7 by MattC555

[betarhoalphadelta]

3 minutes ago, smashdn said:

 

Are you asking is every iteration they come out with longer than the previous or are you asking do I believe that the current prov1 is longer than the prov1 of ca2003?

 

No I do not think every iteration is substantively longer than the last.  But I do believe that the ball today is longer than ones around 2000.  Graph that difference in length using the beginning and the end and it would be a linear gain year over year.  Practically that isn't how it works though.

 

 

I would think if the ball was actually longer, we would have seen gains in the distance leaders on tour, whereas they're hovering around that 320y ceiling for the past 20 years. 

 

Logically, if the BALL was longer, the players would not have to swing as hard to get to 320y, or the swing that produced 320y in 2003 would produce >320y in 2023. Which if we assume that the reason distance gains aren't going up is because players can't control the club as well at higher speeds, would mean that you're either more accurate at the same distance or you're equally accurate at longer distance--which we're not seeing. 

 

The average distance is going up which we can attribute to demographic / strategy changes amongst tour players. But if the ball were getting progressively longer, I believe both the distance leaders AND the average would be climbing. 

 

And again, I believe that the ball OEMs have known how to exceed the ODS since before the current ODS was implemented--remember that the ODS has existed since 1976. Competitively, they would have been working to be as close as possible to the standard for their premium balls, and their R&D would have uncovered methods/materials that would have exceeded the standards. 

 

9 minutes ago, smashdn said:

 

You don't think the relative roughness or smoothness of the outside of a spin has an impact on how fast it rotates?  i am speaking of spin in terms of ball flight.  I don't think you can separate them.  Backspin keeps the ball in the air.  Too much back spin causes it to balloon.  Optimizing back spin to the degree you need but not too much stabilizes straight flight while not being overly penal if you get some side spin in there.

 

No, I don't believe the roughness or smoothness of the outside materially impacts spin--MAYBE on a chip or pitch shot, but not off a driver. Have you ever watched a high-speed camera impact of a golf club and a ball? The spin comes from how much (and at what angle) the club deforms the ball during impact, not really the cover roughness or smoothness. 

 

[Simpsonia]

6 minutes ago, MattC555 said:

 

This comparison is worth watching, 2000 vs 2020 Pro V1.  It includes using the balls outside and hitting on a monitor, as well as cutting the balls in half to see the visual differences in construction.

 

 

 

 

And I bet that a large portion of that performance delta is coming from materials degradation over time rather than fundamental ball design. 

[betarhoalphadelta]

13 minutes ago, Simpsonia said:

 

As I understand it, it doesn't affect peak spin, but it would have a far greater affect on spin decay. The faster spin decay would mean a shorter and potentially straighter ball, depending on how greatly spin decayed over the flight time. 

 

4 minutes ago, MattC555 said:

 

I don't believe they affect static spin rate at impact.  They will affect dynamic spin decay due to variable drag coefficients.  This would also affect static spin rate at carry distance, which would influence the ability to hold greens. 

 

Agree with this--dimple patterns can affect spin decay. But spin off the clubface won't be affected by dimple pattern. 

[MattC555]

1 minute ago, Simpsonia said:

 

And I bet that a large portion of that performance delta is coming from materials degradation over time rather than fundamental ball design. 

 

The results are close enough that I would chalk it up to swing variance and ball tolerances as much as anything else.  They are very similar.  His main takeaway is that the newer ball was more durable. 

[smashdn]

So the MGS data is not good then?

 

I am not going to link it for the same reasons as someone else stated earlier but it is out there if one wants to look.  2021 the leader was 329.76.  2023 leader was 348.00.  Both supposedly ProV1 left dash.

[MattC555]

31 minutes ago, smashdn said:

So the MGS data is not good then?

 

I am not going to link it for the same reasons as someone else stated earlier but it is out there if one wants to look.  2021 the leader was 329.76.  2023 leader was 348.00.  Both supposedly ProV1 left dash.

 

I didn't say that.  The left - is a different ball than the Pro V1.  It's performance is more similar to the Pro V1x.  Looking at combined data from 2023, as I don't know if you can compare tests conducted at different years (not sure they are accounting for elevation, wind, air temp, etc), here are the results:

 

 

7.58 yards is more than I would say is variance.  The Left Dash appears to out perform the Pro V1.  I don't know how either of these balls compare to the 2020/2000 Pro V1.  The most recent Pro V1x and Dash might be a move forward in distance.  It would be interesting to see.  All this certainly might make me go order a sleeve.  haha

 

It is less spinny of a 7 iron too:

 

 

It has slightly less wedge spin, but overall appears to be an excellent ball.  I wonder why it doesn't just replace the Pro V1x, as I'm sure they don't sell much of them. 

[ThinkingPlus]

4 minutes ago, MattC555 said:

 

I didn't say that.  The left - is a different ball than the Pro V1.  It's performance is more similar to the Pro V1x.  Looking at combined data from 2023, as I don't know if you can compare tests conducted at different years (not sure they are accounting for elevation, wind, air temp, etc), here are the results:

 

 

7.58 yards is more than I would say is variance.  The Left Dash appears to out perform the Pro V1.  I don't know how either of these balls compare to the 2020/2000 Pro V1.  The most recent Pro V1x and Dash might be a move forward in distance.  It would be interesting to see.  All this certainly might make me go order a sleeve.  haha

 

It is less spinny of a 7 iron too:

 

 

It has slightly less wedge spin, but overall appears to be an excellent ball.  I wonder why it doesn't just replace the Pro V1x, as I'm sure they don't sell much of them. 

Some players still need/want the extra spin from the standard ProV1x. I would probably try the dash if it came in optic yellow. I need spin to hold greens, but the dash probably has enough. The AVX falls a little short for me so I use the standard X (or will once I burn through my last dozen AVX). Splitting lots of hairs here, but most all the tweaking of ball performance since OG ProV1 has been spin management and launch management across the club set/speed.

[bekgolf]

1 hour ago, smashdn said:

So the MGS data is not good then?

 

I am not going to link it for the same reasons as someone else stated earlier but it is out there if one wants to look.  2021 the leader was 329.76.  2023 leader was 348.00.  Both supposedly ProV1 left dash.

 

Are they correcting to a barometric standard?  IIRC the last test was done at a higher elevation and ambient temp of 105f, without a weather correction there can be significant differences.

[TLUBulldogGolf]

3 hours ago, farmer said:

"But, we don't even know how the restriction is going to be implemented yet."  That sentence embodies the problem the RB's have created.  I suppose that in the interest of "growing the game", the RB's have created a vast swamp of speculation and misinformation.

It just the nature of how the specs are written. Prior to solid core balls had a completely different construction. That’s probably why they asked for 4 years to develop.

[TLUBulldogGolf]

1 hour ago, smashdn said:

So the MGS data is not good then?

 

I am not going to link it for the same reasons as someone else stated earlier but it is out there if one wants to look.  2021 the leader was 329.76.  2023 leader was 348.00.  Both supposedly ProV1 left dash.

MGS changed the test parameters. Also I don’t believe the left dash was ever updated so it would have been the same ball.

Edited March 7 by TLUBulldogGolf

[TLUBulldogGolf]

1 hour ago, MattC555 said:

 

I didn't say that.  The left - is a different ball than the Pro V1.  It's performance is more similar to the Pro V1x.  Looking at combined data from 2023, as I don't know if you can compare tests conducted at different years (not sure they are accounting for elevation, wind, air temp, etc), here are the results:

 

 

7.58 yards is more than I would say is variance.  The Left Dash appears to out perform the Pro V1.  I don't know how either of these balls compare to the 2020/2000 Pro V1.  The most recent Pro V1x and Dash might be a move forward in distance.  It would be interesting to see.  All this certainly might make me go order a sleeve.  haha

 

It is less spinny of a 7 iron too:

 

 

It has slightly less wedge spin, but overall appears to be an excellent ball.  I wonder why it doesn't just replace the Pro V1x, as I'm sure they don't sell much of them. 

A bunch of tour players play the X. I would imagine the ProV1 does much better at retail but I’m sure they still sell plenty of the X. Besides being harder to find, the left dash is too firm and not as good around the greens imo. Though I do gain about a club off my irons with it.

Edited March 7 by TLUBulldogGolf

[MattC555]

20 minutes ago, TLUBulldogGolf said:

A bunch of tour players play the X. I would imagine the ProV1 does much better at retail but I’m sure they still sell plenty of the X. Besides being harder to find, the left dash is too firm and not as good around the greens imo. Though I do gain about a club off my irons with it.

 

I've tried the X and swap to it every once in a while.  I don't notice the difference in my iron distance, but it does appear to launch a bit higher and my drives seem to go a bit more.  The firmness for me is a killer though.  Probably the same for the Dash.  I'm a pretty high spin player, so I find the Dash interesting. 

[MattC555]

24 minutes ago, TLUBulldogGolf said:

A bunch of tour players play the X. I would imagine the ProV1 does much better at retail but I’m sure they still sell plenty of the X.

 

Poor wording on my part.  I'm sure they don't sell many Pro V1x Dash.  It has confusing branding and to my knowledge isn't really marketed. 

[TLUBulldogGolf]

1 minute ago, MattC555 said:

 

Poor wording on my part.  I'm sure they don't sell many Pro V1x Dash.  It has confusing branding and to my knowledge isn't really marketed. 

 

Very specialized ball but I'm surprised it doesn't just go away at retail. I'd be more interested in trying the V1 left dot. If you think the X is too firm you would hate the dash as it's noticeably firmer. Though it does lower spin. 

[betarhoalphadelta]

2 hours ago, smashdn said:

So the MGS data is not good then?

 

I am not going to link it for the same reasons as someone else stated earlier but it is out there if one wants to look.  2021 the leader was 329.76.  2023 leader was 348.00.  Both supposedly ProV1 left dash.

 

I think it's decently good data for ball-to-ball comparison in the same year. But extrapolating farther than that is not clear.

 

What you show is a 2 year jump of 5.5%. Do you really think ball distances increased 5.5% in two years? If we look at PGA Tour data, do we see either the distance leaders OR the tour average jumping 5.5% in two years? Do you think Titleist was 5.5% below the ODS standard in 2021 and just suddenly unlocked the secret to getting there? 

 

And that's just one ball (Left Dash). Let's look at others. Bridgestone's top ball went from 327.12 to 336.87 (3.0%). Callaway went from 326.24 to 344.77 (5.7%). Srixon 326.33 to 344.78 (5.6%). TaylorMade 322.90 to 334.06 (3.4%). Snell and Vice, two DTC companies that don't have the technology control of Titleist, saw gains of 5.5% and 6.6%(!), respectively. Do you think they all unlocked some technical distance secret, independently, and without collusion / the stealing of each others' trade secrets? 

 

I think all of those answers, rationally, would be "no". Which means that perhaps the data, although valuable/good when applies properly, is not relevant to prove the point that you're trying to make about year-to-year ball improvement. 

 

No, the most logical way to interpret these findings is that something changed in the test setup, not the ball. 

 

(My apologies if I transcribed any numbers incorrectly--jumping between windows and a calculator I may have been off here or there.)

[smashdn]

@betarhoalphadelta and @MattC555 I shot you pm's with what I was looking at.

 

Hard for me to say whether PGAT data would be indicative of a ball distance jump aside from true paradigm shifts such as to the ProV1 ca October 2000.  Some of those guys are hoarding old versions and using non-retail versions of balls.

 

I wouldn't use the absence or presence in the PGAT data as the smoking gun one way or the other.

 

I must be the weird outlier who likes the AVX.  Or at least I liked an older version of it.  Data may show otherwise, but I felt it to be longer than a regular prov and less spinning as well.  Less spinning seemed to help me keep it straighter off the tee which also helped me distance-wise.  I can't spin my irons for spit anyway so I just adjusted for a hair bit of roll out on the greens.

Edited March 7 by smashdn