Are Tom's physics a "MYTH"?


http://golf.about.com/od/faqs/f/cor.htm

To give a frame of reference for performance, with a driver the difference in carry distance between a head with a COR of 0.820 and another head with a COR of 0.830 would be 4.2 yards for a swing speed of 100 mph. It is true that as swing speed increases, the distance difference is greater. And likewise, as swing speed decreases the distance difference for each increment of the COR measurement is less. This is one of the reasons why the USGA rule which limits the COR of a clubhead has the effect of penalizing the slower swing speed golfer much more than the high swing speed player.


Tom is a club designer, and club builder, who was with Golfsmith for some time. Technically, he's in the top 1% of engineers today in golf club, head design.


About the Author
Tom Wishon is one of the most highly respected members of the golf equipment industry. He specializes in clubhead design, shaft analysis, and clubfitting research and development, and is the owner of his own golf equipment company, Tom Wishon Golf Technology. Tom is a member of the Golf Digest Technical Panel, and is the Technical Advisor to PGA.com, the website of the PGA of America.


Do Long Hitters Get An Unfair Advantage?

Tom has explained how Cor has a direct relationship to distance, I call it "Bouncing The Trampoline" with a "Harder and Harder Core Golf Ball. Dick Rugge and Walter Driver know exactly what is going on with these "HARD CORE GOLF BALLS" and "TRAMPOLINE DRIVER FACES" and it is right now skewed to high club head speeds. The High End Club Head Speeds with these Harder Golf Balls are Bouncing these 460cc Driver Faces into the next County. It truly is amazing to see the USGA and Mr. Driver trying to cover up this situation when Driver argued with Ely Callaway that spring like effects couldn't be realized with average club head speeds. So Walter, if it doesn't benefit average club head speeds is it safe to say that it only benefits faster swings??? And as Tom Wishon points out, the "Incremental Distance Advantage" when the cor of the club face is expanded to a further cor number. Swinging these "Trampoline Faced Drivers" faster and faster and faster is giving those with the fastest swings a disproportional distance advantage.

Dick Rugge, Walter Driver, the harder you bounce on a trampoline the higher you bounce. When are you guys going to address this significant inequity, and start owning up to its responsibility???

Sean,
Thanks once again for laying it all out there for all of us to see the rapidly descending level of integrity going on at the USGA...

Your a breath of fresh air Sean, never change!

Did anybody else get a headache trying to read that study? Yet another day I thank the good Lord that I went to law school. The arguments and conclusions reached by this guy remind me of the people who argue that one baseball player is better than another using statistics (sabremetricians or something like that). You can certainly come up with statistics to prove any proposition. But if you try to tell me that JB, Bubba, Tiger and Phil don't have a disproportionate advantage over the Corey Pavins of the world, you've got your head in the clouds (or firmly implanted up some orifice).

Sorry, Smolmania, I loved that study. I read it during down time while running some computer models this morning (the good Lord sent me to grad school for a doctorate in water resources modeling!).

This was the exact kind of study that I have advocated getting done for months now in some of my posts. While I think he overstated the "diminishing returns" aspect of clubhead speed and distance, he makes some rather fantastic points, I think.

Smol, you are dead on, though, at the end of the day. Not to pick on poor Corey Pavin (our short hitter poster boy), but the report seems to show that if he could get his swing speed up OR better optimize his launch conditions, he would be further off the tee. AND as a result, we all know, that means he can play flog and be more competitive on the long courses by hitting 8/9 instead of 4/5/6 into greens.

Geoff, I absolutely loved reading this article and I'm glad you found and posted it for us. It shows all of us what we can do to lengthen our game if we want. Optimizing launch conditions will get you further off the tee than swinging out of your shoes at the ball. Dammit, my father was right all along while I was growing up.

Swing smooth and hit the ball correctly. THAT IS THE MISSING/HIDDEN POINT OF THE ARTICLE: you will go further by hitting the ball best, not harder. Realistically, we aren't going to be able to warp up our swing speeds substantially, but we CAN swing better at the ball and launch it better.

HERE'S THE BAD NEWS (GOOD IF you're a retailer): Marketed appropriately, everybody and his brother will hit the stores for time on the launch monitor and simulators to work on their swings.

SO, do we need that new driver or do we need to hit our driver better? For what it's worth, I went and tried some new drivers out the other day on a simulator with launch monitor and compared them to my own (horror!) 2-yr old driver. Turns out that I got no advantage with the new clubs.

Are we entering a new era of techno-golf that is techno not only in the sense of the clubs but more so in terms of VR golf training and swing calculations?

Shame on me. I forgot to blame the ball too as part of our new Era of TechnoGolf. :)

I agree with Pete and I also really liked the article.

Quintavalla rejects the notion that there is some kind of "kink" in ball response where higher swing speeds suddenly get disproportionately longer results using modern balls and drivers.

His TESTING suggests that if Woods (or you name your favorite long hitter) hits the ball 10% (or you name your favorite percent) longer than Pavin (or you name your favorite short hitter) it is because the longer player swings AT LEAST 10% (or you name your favorite percentage) faster.

Pretty simple isn't it.

Also, appendix 3 - on the final two pages of the report - is worth a good hard look. Here the author selected the 100 players who were listed in the official distance stats for both 2000 and 2005. When he ranked them according to their relative distance in 2000, he found a very slight (and statistically insignificant) NEGATIVE relationship for distance gains during the next 5 years.

Sean, why don't you ask Tom Wishon to post HIS VIEWS on the results of Quintavalla's research and let's find out from Tom - directly - if he really disagrees with the USGA TEST findings.



In other words, the revolution from wound to solid balls has not increased the distance of the longer hitters by MORE than the traditional short hitters. If anything the result has been "slightly" in the other direction.

Tom Watson's views are one thing. Tested facts are another. I'll take facts any day.

I checked on players who were active in 1995 and 2005 (there were 60) and found the same lack of correlation between driving distance and gains due to the new equipment as the USGA found between 2000 and 2005. Grouping into ten groups of 6 from shortest to longest, I found that all groups gained about the same amount with the shortest hitters actually getting a little more gain than the longest ones.

Steve,
A wound ball compressed more on contact which caused the velocity of that golf ball to come off the club face slower and with more spin on it.

The two piece multi layered balls with today’s super hard cores does not compress like a wound ball use to, thus a tremendous amount of energy that was once lost because of ball compression is not lost with these multi layered balls. The end result is more velocity for a golf ball that doesn’t deform on contact for “2” REASONS. First it is the harder balls resistance to give on contact because its core is manufactured harder. Second, when the face gives this creates a second scenario that keeps the golf ball from being deformed on contact. Two reasons that have led to significant ball speed off the driver. The ball doesn’t give anymore and therefore it makes the face give more, and in all of this the golf ball is not deformed ( loss of energy) on contact. Harder Core Golf Balls and Thicker Faced Drivers of 460cc that need a 120mph swing speed to “REALLY GET THIS THICKER FACED DRIVER TO BOUNCE A HARDER CORE GOLF BALL JUST RIGHT FOR 120MPH SPEEDS AND GREATER IS COMPLETELY UNETHITICAL AND UNSPORTSMANSHIP CONDUCT ON THE PART OF THE USGA. THEY MAY BE ABLE TO FOOL SOME PEOPLE SOME OF THE TIME, BUT IF THEY ARE TRYING TO FOOL PROFESSIONALS THEY BETTER START THINKING ABOUT THAT TWICE, AND SOON.



SO, do we need that new driver or do we need to hit our driver better? For what it's worth, I went and tried some new drivers out the other day on a simulator with launch monitor and compared them to my own (horror!) 2-yr old driver. Turns out that I got no advantage with the new clubs.


Pete the Luddite - - - Could the reason you didn’t see any benefit from the new drivers you tested compared to your 2 year old driver be because the older driver has a thinner face bouncing a hard ball further, than one of today’s thicker faced drivers not bouncing a hard ball at your club head speed? I hit my older drivers further than the current drivers because the face on the older drivers is thinner, and I get this thinner face to expand further than I can get today’s thicker faced drivers to expand.


So what should really be viewed in all of these myths is the "Main Ingredient" Club Face Cor, where the Drivers (trampolines) Faces have been expanded more and more and more all the way up to 460cc. These Hard Core Golf Balls are making these larger trampolines bounce the golf balls of today even further.

Steve, what I would like to see addressed by Dick Rugge is the relationship of COR just like Tom Wishon has done. These multi layered golf balls with the super hard cores are not compressing like wound balls did. That part is plain and simple, and when tested with a 1990 Wilson all wood headed driver those balls may in fact go the same distance. But here is what professionals in the locker rooms today are talking about. The Harder Core Golf Balls that came out in 2003 simply make the larger for best results (any size will do) 460cc drivers’ faces expand to a greater degree with a harder golf ball. The face on these larger heads has been confirmed to have a thicker face than the smaller cc heads to keep the larger heads from cracking. The "PROBLEM WITH ALL OF THIS", slower swing speeds can't bounce these thicker faces.

Steve, all professionals know and understand one simple thing, "THE LESS THE GOLF BALL IS DEFORMED UPON CONTACT THE FASTER IT COMES OFF THE CLUB FACE". USING A 460cc THICKER FACE THAT GIVES FOR CLUB HEAD SPEEDS OF 120mph OR GREATER AND WORKS BEST FOR THOSE SWING SPEEDS, AND WHERE NOT ALL PROFESSIONALS ARE SWINGING THE DRIVER AT 120MPH IS NOT GOING TO BE TOLERATED MUCH LONGER.


Steve, what really needs to happen is for Walter Driver to review his quotes to Ely Callaway when the USGA was dead against "SPRING LIKE EFFECTS". Those "SPRING LIKE EFFECTS" where drivers have grown from 300cc to 460cc and drivers faces being manufactured thicker which work fantastic for 120mph swing speeds, and harder and harder and harder core golf balls being manufactured in order to get these 460cc drivers to bounce these hard rocks is simply a joke, and the opinion in the locker room is it needs to be stopped.

Final thought here Steve, testing golf balls with a wood headed driver tell us nothing except that balls being struck with a wood headed driver whether three piece or multi layered two piece could and might actually go the same exact distance with the same club head speed being used. What Tom Wishon is accurately describing is the relationship of "Cor" to club head speed. Nothing the USGA has put out so far even addresses this issue. So yes the USGA can make their claims about distance and balls, but what about hard balls making these thicker faced drivers bounce a hard ball just right at 120mph??? When is the USGA going to address the "SPRING" that is working significantly well at 120mph and greater???

Sean,

FACT 1 - As I and John V and Quintavalla (in his appendix 3) have calculated - there is NO DISCERNABLE ADVANTAGE to those with higher vs lower swing speeds with respect to recent distance gains on PGATour Distance statistics. The longest hitters are not suddenly separating themselves further from the pack. It simply hasn't happened in the PGATour distance stats.

FACT 2 - Quintavalla finds no "kinked" relationship which causes a high speed swinger to pick up non-proportional "incremental" distance from a selection of Feb 2006 balls. He tested a wide range of swing speeds from 90 thru 125 mph and found no evidence of "non-proportional high speed advantages". Instead, HE FOUND A LEVELING OFF of the distance gains at the higher end of the spectrum.

Facts 1 and 2 are CONSISTENT. Both the empirical measurements of driving distance changes on tour and the scientific testing of modern club and ball combinations portray a technology leap that is allowing everyone on tour to add distance but which is not tending to favor any particular segment of the distance spectrum.

So, what is the FACTUAL BASIS for your repeated "incremental distance advantage" counter-argument? Where is evidence of the supposed "cheating"?

If Mr. Wishon wishes to comment on the on "errors" (if there are some) in Quintvalla's test results or on the reasons why PGATour distance statistics do not reflect your assertions of "incremental" distance advantages - please urge him to do so.

Um, just breezed through it, but this report is seriously flawed.

The launch angle people typically aim for is about 15-16 degrees, not 9-10. At such a low launch angle, the ball will land too early. This test seems to assume people are aiming at hitting the ball using only the loft of the clubhead, not on a tee and at an ascending angle.

Quick cut and paste from the folks at Bombsquad:
Clubhead speed/launch angle/spin (ideal)
100mph 16-18.5 3900-4200
110mph 15.5-17.5 3800-4050
120mph 15-17 3750-3900
130mph 14-16 3500-3800
140mph 13-15 3300-3550
150mph 12.5-14 3000-3300
160mph 12-13.5 2750-3200
170mph 11-12 2500-2700

Another thing: I just blew through it, not reading every last word, but I don't remember seeing too much about ball construction. If anyone found this, let me know. They say "use on PGA tour", but they use a variety of balls.

Naturally, they are not going to say whose was used, but anyone reading this report and looking to make sense of it would need to know ball construction, material hardness, etc, before it made any sense. We don't know if the USGA testers used balls that would produce these results, or if they did, in fact, go out and find a variety of balls with greatly differing constructions.

Last: could not get relyable test results at 130mph and over? Sorry, cop out. The guys at the top end of the driving spectrum hit it at 130mph plus. The long drive guys are getting upward of 150.

I fear if this was a grad student, his prof would be wearing a frown right now...