speaking of golf balls...

[daveperk]

I found an old yellowing Titleist Tour Balata 100, the legendary Black Titleist, in my garage the other day. Grabbed a TP Black from my golf bag and did the Newton test, dropped them both on the garage floor from the same height.

The old Black Titleist bounced up slightly more than half as high as the TP Black.\

There is one helluva lot more energy stored in todays golf balls than there was in the old days.

I don't know if or how it relates to actual engineering, but it was eye-opening to me.

Kind of explains why the COR is so carefully limited. God knows if you could get a driver up to .950 instead of .830, everyone would be hitting these things 450 yards.

[pingman360]

I found an old yellowing Titleist Tour Balata 100, the legendary Black Titleist, in my garage the other day. Grabbed a TP Black from my golf bag and did the Newton test, dropped them both on the garage floor from the same height.

The old Black Titleist bounced up slightly more than half as high as the TP Black.\

There is one helluva lot more energy stored in todays golf balls than there was in the old days.

I don't know if or how it relates to actual engineering, but it was eye-opening to me.

Kind of explains why the COR is so carefully limited. God knows if you could get a driver up to .950 instead of .830, everyone would be hitting these things 450 yards.

i think that if the cor was @ .950 the drivers would break after a couple hits... just what ive heard though...

[LyleG]

Its funny how people race to buy nonconforming clubs because of slightly more COR. Wishon found in his testing that a COR of .900 will produce 4 more yards at 100mph versus .830.

Same with caving in the face. Unless you swing in the 120 and up range you will never cave in a face unless it is defective to begin with, even if the COR is .950

[daveperk]

All I know is, the coefficient of restoration in a black titleist sucks compared to the TP Black and, by inference, any new golf ball.

YOu were right in that other thread, Lyle, it's the golf ball that allows the great new performance in distance and accuracy. The clubheads actually spring about the same as a well made wooden clubhead from 1985. The design improvements are about consistency and making the sweet spot bigger.

One of these days I'll take that old Black Titleist out on the course, and play it side by side with a new ball. I'll bet that hitting with the same club, the balls themselves will show a tremendous difference in performance.

[LyleG]

One of these days I'll take that old Black Titleist out on the course, and play it side by side with a new ball. I'll bet that hitting with the same club, the balls themselves will show a tremendous difference in performance.

I tried this at the end of last year. It really drove it home for me. It all about the ball. A steel iron of 30 years ago is still a steel iron comparable to the irons of today. A 180 cc titanium driver is still a titanium driver. Both will produce results equal to modern gear. The ball however has improved in leaps and bounds.

[Horseballs]

I bet the results would be somewhat different if the Titleist Tour from 1985 was produced yesterday as opposed to 20+ years ago. Those wound balls would lose elasticity after a bladed wedge, and they would lose some pop if you played them for more than a couple rounds. Who knows what's been going on with your yellow Titty in the garage.
But all in all, you're absolutely right. Todays solid core balls are so much better.

[bjdrivers]

That brought back memories Dave. I remember in perfect detail playing a brand new right out of the sleeve Tour Balata 100 many years ago, probably in '97 or so. I had hit a good drive, and had a full 9 iron to the green. I was using my dad's Nicklaus N1 Linear Dynamics irons at the time. (solid player's cast irons back then)

I hit it right in the center of the face, it hit the back of the green (nice bent grass green) and spun back at least 30 feet. I walked up to the green to mark my ball. When I picked it up it had been completely cut in half. The core was showing bright as day, I was like WTF. My playing partner laughed and asked me what ball it was, then said "no wonder, those Titleist balls are crap"

He was playing rock hard pinnacles.

I still laugh about that to this day.

[daveperk]

That brought back memories Dave. I remember in perfect detail playing a brand new right out of the sleeve Tour Balata 100 many years ago, probably in '97 or so. I had hit a good drive, and had a full 9 iron to the green. I was using my dad's Nicklaus N1 Linear Dynamics irons at the time. (solid player's cast irons back then)

I hit it right in the center of the face, it hit the back of the green (nice bent grass green) and spun back at least 30 feet. I walked up to the green to mark my ball. When I picked it up it had been completely cut in half. The core was showing bright as day, I was like WTF. My playing partner laughed and asked me what ball it was, then said "no wonder, those Titleist balls are crap"

He was playing rock hard pinnacles.

I still laugh about that to this day.

Well, the ball wasn't crap, per se... but balata was a natural rubber, the best cover they had at the time if you wanted balls to spin... they hadn't yet developed the soft tough urethanes they use today... or at least they hadn't thought of using them in golf balls...

I put a smile in many a titleist in my day... :-)

[Not a hacker]

I still think the old wound balata's had more bite than modern balls. And they could be worked haeps more too. But there lied the problem. In the hands of a meastro like Norman, Miller or Seve the ball could talk, but in the hands of less talented players it meant swing mistakes were greatly exaggerated. The issue of balls going further these days is an interesting one. About 10 years ago I was at my local range when the pro mentioned to me he had got his hands on some 'hot' Titty balata's that did not conform to USGA standards. He claimed they were twenty yards longer than regular balls. Balls go further today than twenty years ago, but it might be because they can get closer to the limit with technology these days without going past it.

[collegegolfer]

A pro I know has a ton of old Titleist Tour Professionals. We played with them a few times last year and it was amazing. They went about 240-250 off my driver...I hit a new ball about 270-300. But, you can spin the daylights out of them. It was ridiculous the zip you could get on a 60 yard wedge shot. Very unscientific, but in my mind there is a HUGE difference in golf balls. The problem was they lost their shape after about 3 holes.

[daveperk]

Back in the early 90's my radio station (literally- I was a partner) had a marketing deal with what was then the Hogan Tour, then Nike Tour.... we were part of the marketing package for their Permian Basin Open in west Texas, at my club where I played, Mission Dorado...

I had, of course, full access, and I used to go to the range and hit with the guys.. one of our winners back then was Franklin Langham, who is still at it, up and down on the PGA tour...

there was an epic session one day at the wedge green, where a bunch of them had gathered for a money game... they would tee up balls and then deliberately skull them, trying to generate massive spin, and then whoever backed his ball up the farthest won the money.

Few Titleist balata balls survived that game for long, but it was amazing to see... a forty yard shot that backs up 25 yards or more... if they hit it just right, the first ZIP backwards looked like the ball hit a brick wall or something.

[collegegolfer]

Every once in a while I do that by accident with a Pro V. I catch it just right and ALMOST skull it and WOW...one bounce and you're right...it's like you hit it off a wall...they just ZIP back. Most of the time I get a foot or two of backspin with a Pro V x.