Xander Schauffele's Callaway Driver Failed COR Test

[bladehunter]

> @Fade said:

> > @bladehunter said:

> > Well. I guess we mostly agree. I think what we differ on is what the actual , functioning limit is. And it’s 257. Not 239.

> >

> > That being said 258 is failing. So absolutely fail him etc. unless.... it’s tested on say a USga machine and you get 252 or so. Then I call fowl. Today’s technology has to be able to produce a test that is not only accurate but repeatable. If it does it’s all good. But we do not know that , and statements by people in the know , leads us to think that it’s not as repeatable as it needs to be.

>

> The real limit is a CT maximum of 239 us, the current tolerance to allow for measurement error associated with today's technology is +18 us. That error corresponds to about 3 yards on a 300 yard drive, or about 1% relative error in distance. Good enough for me.

 

Right. Per the rule.

 

I’m just saying that all oems are not limiting to 239. They are all using 257 as the limit. Most likely shooting for around 252ish. Certainly not 239.

 

I was simply saying that if they want it to actually be 239 , just eliminate the flexible zone from 239 to 257. Or reverse it. Say it’s ok from 221-239. Which would make 239 the true usable limit. I get that the distance is nothing. But I also know that if you make a race car rule that limits horsepower at 425 brake HP with a grey area up to 450 brake HP then every engine in the class is going to be making over 445hp. So don’t complain when nobody is at 425. .

[Fade]

This situation could get really ugly if they develop a superior testing instrument / technique, that would allow for a 10x reduction in error tolerance down to about 2 us.

[15th Club]

> @bladehunter said:

> > @"15th Club" said:

> > > @bladehunter said:

> > > Well. I guess we mostly agree. I think what we differ on is what the actual , functioning limit is. And it’s 257. Not 239.

> > >

> > > That being said 258 is failing. So absolutely fail him etc. unless.... it’s tested on say a USga machine and you get 252 or so. Then I call fowl. Today’s technology has to be able to produce a test that is not only accurate but repeatable. If it does it’s all good. But we do not know that , and statements by people in the know , leads us to think that it’s not as repeatable as it needs to be.

> >

> >

> > If anybody can come up with a better test, great. But again I insist that no matter whose certified machine is used, if your driver fails it’s too goddamn bad for you because no driver tests at 238 on one pendulum and 258 on another.

> >

> > If manufacturers think that they owe it to their tour stars to give them drivers that get CT readings of something very close to 257, that is a dangerous and foolish practice in the face of the actual limit being 239. There’s no more cushion; no room for testing variances and so absolutely no sympathy or surprise when drivers fail. I’d like to see a big, comprehensive test of Tour drivers — no names attached — and a public release of all CT test results. And see what percent are over the intended limit of 239.

> >

> > Again, this is a rotten, expensive game of “cops and robbers” by the manufacturers and the Tour club techs.

>

> That percent is guaranteed 99-100 % over 239.

 

 

1). I expect that you are thoroughly correct, and;

2). It proves the point that when you are an equipment manufacturer whose driver heads are deliberately pushing the boundaries beyond intended limits, that no one should have the slightest bit of sympathy for heads that exceed the limit-plus-testing error-allowance. You gambled and pushed a limit and lost.

 

And by “you,” I’m talking to you, Bob Parsons. More on that in a post later.

[bladehunter]

> @"15th Club" said:

> > @bladehunter said:

> > > @"15th Club" said:

> > > > @bladehunter said:

> > > > Well. I guess we mostly agree. I think what we differ on is what the actual , functioning limit is. And it’s 257. Not 239.

> > > >

> > > > That being said 258 is failing. So absolutely fail him etc. unless.... it’s tested on say a USga machine and you get 252 or so. Then I call fowl. Today’s technology has to be able to produce a test that is not only accurate but repeatable. If it does it’s all good. But we do not know that , and statements by people in the know , leads us to think that it’s not as repeatable as it needs to be.

> > >

> > >

> > > If anybody can come up with a better test, great. But again I insist that no matter whose certified machine is used, if your driver fails it’s too goddamn bad for you because no driver tests at 238 on one pendulum and 258 on another.

> > >

> > > If manufacturers think that they owe it to their tour stars to give them drivers that get CT readings of something very close to 257, that is a dangerous and foolish practice in the face of the actual limit being 239. There’s no more cushion; no room for testing variances and so absolutely no sympathy or surprise when drivers fail. I’d like to see a big, comprehensive test of Tour drivers — no names attached — and a public release of all CT test results. And see what percent are over the intended limit of 239.

> > >

> > > Again, this is a rotten, expensive game of “cops and robbers” by the manufacturers and the Tour club techs.

> >

> > That percent is guaranteed 99-100 % over 239.

>

>

> 1). I expect that you are thoroughly correct, and;

> 2). It proves the point that when you are an equipment manufacturer whose driver heads are deliberately pushing the boundaries beyond intended limits, that no one should have the slightest bit of sympathy for heads that exceed the limit-plus-testing error-allowance. You gambled and pushed a limit and lost.

>

> And by “you,” I’m talking to you, Bob Parsons. More on that in a post later.

 

Agree 100 %.

I only have sympathy for Xander because of the cheater cat calls by his hypocrite peers. Each one playing a head more similar than not to his.

 

[Fade]

> @bladehunter said:

> > @Fade said:

> > > @bladehunter said:

> > > Well. I guess we mostly agree. I think what we differ on is what the actual , functioning limit is. And it’s 257. Not 239.

> > >

> > > That being said 258 is failing. So absolutely fail him etc. unless.... it’s tested on say a USga machine and you get 252 or so. Then I call fowl. Today’s technology has to be able to produce a test that is not only accurate but repeatable. If it does it’s all good. But we do not know that , and statements by people in the know , leads us to think that it’s not as repeatable as it needs to be.

> >

> > The real limit is a CT maximum of 239 us, the current tolerance to allow for measurement error associated with today's technology is +18 us. That error corresponds to about 3 yards on a 300 yard drive, or about 1% relative error in distance. Good enough for me.

>

> Right. Per the rule.

>

> I’m just saying that all oems are not limiting to 239. They are all using 257 as the limit. Most likely shooting for around 252ish. Certainly not 239.

>

> I was simply saying that if they want it to actually be 239 , just eliminate the flexible zone from 239 to 257. Or reverse it. Say it’s ok from 221-239. Which would make 239 the true usable limit. I get that the distance is nothing. But I also know that if you make a race car rule that limits horsepower at 425 brake HP with a grey area up to 450 brake HP then every engine in the class is going to be making over 445hp. So don’t complain when nobody is at 425. .

 

If the OEMs want to risk failing the test, fine with me, just don't complain when you fail it. And if they have a better test at their disposal, they can work with the ruling bodies to refine the ruling bodies' test, if the latter are willing to adopt it.

[bladehunter]

> @Fade said:

> > @bladehunter said:

> > > @Fade said:

> > > > @bladehunter said:

> > > > Well. I guess we mostly agree. I think what we differ on is what the actual , functioning limit is. And it’s 257. Not 239.

> > > >

> > > > That being said 258 is failing. So absolutely fail him etc. unless.... it’s tested on say a USga machine and you get 252 or so. Then I call fowl. Today’s technology has to be able to produce a test that is not only accurate but repeatable. If it does it’s all good. But we do not know that , and statements by people in the know , leads us to think that it’s not as repeatable as it needs to be.

> > >

> > > The real limit is a CT maximum of 239 us, the current tolerance to allow for measurement error associated with today's technology is +18 us. That error corresponds to about 3 yards on a 300 yard drive, or about 1% relative error in distance. Good enough for me.

> >

> > Right. Per the rule.

> >

> > I’m just saying that all oems are not limiting to 239. They are all using 257 as the limit. Most likely shooting for around 252ish. Certainly not 239.

> >

> > I was simply saying that if they want it to actually be 239 , just eliminate the flexible zone from 239 to 257. Or reverse it. Say it’s ok from 221-239. Which would make 239 the true usable limit. I get that the distance is nothing. But I also know that if you make a race car rule that limits horsepower at 425 brake HP with a grey area up to 450 brake HP then every engine in the class is going to be making over 445hp. So don’t complain when nobody is at 425. .

>

> If the OEMs want to risk failing the test, fine with me, just don't complain when you fail it. And if they have a better test at their disposal, they can work with the ruling bodies to refine the ruling bodies' test, if the latter are willing to adopt it.

 

Sure. I agree. No sympathy for callaway here. I just wish the rule was written without a grey area. As is I also have no issue with them running right in the 252-253 or so mark. The rule allows it , so why not ?

[Fade]

> @bladehunter said:

> > @Fade said:

> > > @bladehunter said:

> > > > @Fade said:

> > > > > @bladehunter said:

> > > > > Well. I guess we mostly agree. I think what we differ on is what the actual , functioning limit is. And it’s 257. Not 239.

> > > > >

> > > > > That being said 258 is failing. So absolutely fail him etc. unless.... it’s tested on say a USga machine and you get 252 or so. Then I call fowl. Today’s technology has to be able to produce a test that is not only accurate but repeatable. If it does it’s all good. But we do not know that , and statements by people in the know , leads us to think that it’s not as repeatable as it needs to be.

> > > >

> > > > The real limit is a CT maximum of 239 us, the current tolerance to allow for measurement error associated with today's technology is +18 us. That error corresponds to about 3 yards on a 300 yard drive, or about 1% relative error in distance. Good enough for me.

> > >

> > > Right. Per the rule.

> > >

> > > I’m just saying that all oems are not limiting to 239. They are all using 257 as the limit. Most likely shooting for around 252ish. Certainly not 239.

> > >

> > > I was simply saying that if they want it to actually be 239 , just eliminate the flexible zone from 239 to 257. Or reverse it. Say it’s ok from 221-239. Which would make 239 the true usable limit. I get that the distance is nothing. But I also know that if you make a race car rule that limits horsepower at 425 brake HP with a grey area up to 450 brake HP then every engine in the class is going to be making over 445hp. So don’t complain when nobody is at 425. .

> >

> > If the OEMs want to risk failing the test, fine with me, just don't complain when you fail it. And if they have a better test at their disposal, they can work with the ruling bodies to refine the ruling bodies' test, if the latter are willing to adopt it.

>

> Sure. I agree. No sympathy for callaway here. I just wish the rule was written without a grey area. As is I also have no issue with them running right in the 252-253 or so mark. The rule allows it , so why not ?

 

The rule does not allow it. The allowance for measurement error means that it is not enforced for an error of +3, but it is enforced for an error of +10. The rule is for the actual club, the tolerance is added for the club measurement.

[MtlJeff]

> @bladehunter said:

> > @"15th Club" said:

> > > @bladehunter said:

> > > > @"15th Club" said:

> > > > > @bladehunter said:

> > > > > Well. I guess we mostly agree. I think what we differ on is what the actual , functioning limit is. And it’s 257. Not 239.

> > > > >

> > > > > That being said 258 is failing. So absolutely fail him etc. unless.... it’s tested on say a USga machine and you get 252 or so. Then I call fowl. Today’s technology has to be able to produce a test that is not only accurate but repeatable. If it does it’s all good. But we do not know that , and statements by people in the know , leads us to think that it’s not as repeatable as it needs to be.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > If anybody can come up with a better test, great. But again I insist that no matter whose certified machine is used, if your driver fails it’s too goddamn bad for you because no driver tests at 238 on one pendulum and 258 on another.

> > > >

> > > > If manufacturers think that they owe it to their tour stars to give them drivers that get CT readings of something very close to 257, that is a dangerous and foolish practice in the face of the actual limit being 239. There’s no more cushion; no room for testing variances and so absolutely no sympathy or surprise when drivers fail. I’d like to see a big, comprehensive test of Tour drivers — no names attached — and a public release of all CT test results. And see what percent are over the intended limit of 239.

> > > >

> > > > Again, this is a rotten, expensive game of “cops and robbers” by the manufacturers and the Tour club techs.

> > >

> > > That percent is guaranteed 99-100 % over 239.

> >

> >

> > 1). I expect that you are thoroughly correct, and;

> > 2). It proves the point that when you are an equipment manufacturer whose driver heads are deliberately pushing the boundaries beyond intended limits, that no one should have the slightest bit of sympathy for heads that exceed the limit-plus-testing error-allowance. You gambled and pushed a limit and lost.

> >

> > And by “you,” I’m talking to you, Bob Parsons. More on that in a post later.

>

> Agree 100 %.

> I only have sympathy for Xander because of the cheater cat calls by his hypocrite peers. Each one playing a head more similar than not to his.

>

 

Agree aswell. I think sometimes we think pros are all super gearheads like many here. You hear interviews with them here and there and there are many that don't seem to obsess over every shaft and head on the market. I'd bet there's a lot of guys who don't even think about if their head is conforming....i mean why wouldn't it be?

 

If a head fails a test, no issue with a player being disqualified and some repercussions happening at the MFR....but to call the player a cheater? It's on the MFR....i can't imagine a single player on the tour tests his driver before every tournament, or every time he swaps one in.

 

 

[15th Club]

So more on Bob Parsons, following my post of a couple of hours ago...

 

This was Parsons, quoted at [GOLF.com](https://www.golf.com/news/2019/07/20/british-open-pxg-denies-xander-illegal-driver-claims/ "GOLF.com"), responding to Xander Schauffele's angry blurting that a PXG driver was one of the ones that he had become aware of having flunked the R&A's random CT-testing at Portrush:

> While it’s unclear which manufacturers — outside of Callaway — indeed received a failing grade, PXG told GOLF.com that Schauffele’s claim was inaccurate. A company representative said only one PXG driver (Billy Horschel’s) was tested by the R&A at Royal Portrush and it received a passing grade by the governing body.

>

> “We do make a hot driver,” Bob Parsons, PXG’s founder and CEO, told GOLF.com. “That said, the PXG driver that was selected for testing this time, tested right on the line.”

>

> The “line” Parsons is talking about is the CT (Characteristic Time) limit set by the USGA and R&A. The rules state a driver’s CT — a measure of the clubface’s spring-like effect — must be no higher than 239 microseconds. But that number can go as high as 257 microseconds (plus-18) due to manufacturing tolerances, making it common for a driver to have a CT in the high 250s during testing.

 

Now it's clear that Parsons is doing his job as promoter of PXG, and particularly PXG's aggressive bad-boy marketing. Whatever. Let's just eliminate all understanding and sympathy for PXG within the Rules and spirit of the game of golf. Whereas Bob Jones was calling penalties on himself in major championships ("You might as well congratulate a man on not robbing a bank"), Bob Parsons is making it clear that his company will push the 257 limit until and unless they get caught. Fugeddabout 239. It's 257 that they are after at PXG. "Hot." When Bob Parsons is talking about "right on the line," rest assured that line is not 239.

 

There has been bad form aplenty by the tour "professional" who called Schauffele a "cheater," and perhaps by Callaway's tour staff and perhaps even by Schauffele himself insofar as he wrongly accused the R&A. But if you want a real villain in this, I give you Bob Parsons.

 

[bladehunter]

> @"15th Club" said:

> So more on Bob Parsons, following my post of a couple of hours ago...

>

> This was Parsons, quoted at [GOLF.com](https://www.golf.com/news/2019/07/20/british-open-pxg-denies-xander-illegal-driver-claims/ "GOLF.com"), responding to Xander Schauffele's angry blurting that a PXG driver was one of the ones that he had become aware of having flunked the R&A's random CT-testing at Portrush:

> > While it’s unclear which manufacturers — outside of Callaway — indeed received a failing grade, PXG told GOLF.com that Schauffele’s claim was inaccurate. A company representative said only one PXG driver (Billy Horschel’s) was tested by the R&A at Royal Portrush and it received a passing grade by the governing body.

> >

> > “We do make a hot driver,” Bob Parsons, PXG’s founder and CEO, told GOLF.com. “That said, the PXG driver that was selected for testing this time, tested right on the line.”

> >

> > The “line” Parsons is talking about is the CT (Characteristic Time) limit set by the USGA and R&A. The rules state a driver’s CT — a measure of the clubface’s spring-like effect — must be no higher than 239 microseconds. But that number can go as high as 257 microseconds (plus-18) due to manufacturing tolerances, making it common for a driver to have a CT in the high 250s during testing.

>

> Now it's clear that Parsons is doing his job as promoter of PXG, and particularly PXG's aggressive bad-boy marketing. Whatever. Let's just eliminate all understanding and sympathy for PXG within the Rules and spirit of the game of golf. Whereas Bob Jones was calling penalties on himself in major championships ("You might as well congratulate a man on not robbing a bank"), Bob Parsons is making it clear that his company will push the 257 limit until and unless they get caught. Fugeddabout 239. It's 257 that they are after at PXG. "Hot." When Bob Parsons is talking about "right on the line," rest assured that line is not 239.

>

> There has been bad form aplenty by the tour "professional" who called Schauffele a "cheater," and perhaps by Callaway's tour staff and perhaps even by Schauffele himself insofar as he wrongly accused the R&A. But if you want a real villain in this, I give you Bob Parsons.

>

 

An unholy alliance can be formed based on that last line !!! Lol. Villain is exactly the correct term for that character.

[grm24]

Interesting story regarding Justin Thomas and his driver before The Open Championship.

 

https://www.golf.com/gear/drivers/2019/07/23/justin-thomas-replace-driver-close-limit/

 

About once a month, Titleist takes Justin Thomas’s TS3 driver off his hands to give it a thorough once-over. The goal behind these regular checkups is simple: ensure Thomas is playing a conforming driver head at all times. Given the pounding a driver face endures on the professional circuit, it’s not uncommon for the bulge and roll on the face to gradually flatten, changing the overall characteristics of the driver.

 

“It’s something that, over time, where you use drivers for a while, they do get hot, they do get a little bit worn out,” Thomas told GOLF.com Tuesday at the WGC-FedEx Invitational.

 

Thomas experienced this firsthand in the run-up to the 2019 Open Championship during a routine driver inspection by Titleist Tour rep J.J. Van Wezenbeeck. During the once-over right before the Scottish Open, Van Wezenbeeck informed Thomas that the face was getting dangerously close to failing, which led the rep to suggest he put a new head in play to keep things legal.

[Stuart_G]

> @Fade said:

> This situation could get really ugly if they develop a superior testing instrument / technique, that would allow for a 10x reduction in error tolerance down to about 2 us.

 

Just my interpretation, but as I read it the 18us tolerance is an allowance for manufacturing tolerances of the heads, not a tolerance for the accuracy of the testing method/machine. The info in @DavePelz4 post about the test accuracy would seem to support that.

 

[buckeyefl]

> @"15th Club" said:

> So more on Bob Parsons, following my post of a couple of hours ago...

>

> This was Parsons, quoted at [GOLF.com](https://www.golf.com/news/2019/07/20/british-open-pxg-denies-xander-illegal-driver-claims/ "GOLF.com"), responding to Xander Schauffele's angry blurting that a PXG driver was one of the ones that he had become aware of having flunked the R&A's random CT-testing at Portrush:

> > While it’s unclear which manufacturers — outside of Callaway — indeed received a failing grade, PXG told GOLF.com that Schauffele’s claim was inaccurate. A company representative said only one PXG driver (Billy Horschel’s) was tested by the R&A at Royal Portrush and it received a passing grade by the governing body.

> >

> > “We do make a hot driver,” Bob Parsons, PXG’s founder and CEO, told GOLF.com. “That said, the PXG driver that was selected for testing this time, tested right on the line.”

> >

> > The “line” Parsons is talking about is the CT (Characteristic Time) limit set by the USGA and R&A. The rules state a driver’s CT — a measure of the clubface’s spring-like effect — must be no higher than 239 microseconds. But that number can go as high as 257 microseconds (plus-18) due to manufacturing tolerances, making it common for a driver to have a CT in the high 250s during testing.

>

> Now it's clear that Parsons is doing his job as promoter of PXG, and particularly PXG's aggressive bad-boy marketing. Whatever. Let's just eliminate all understanding and sympathy for PXG within the Rules and spirit of the game of golf. Whereas Bob Jones was calling penalties on himself in major championships ("You might as well congratulate a man on not robbing a bank"), Bob Parsons is making it clear that his company will push the 257 limit until and unless they get caught. Fugeddabout 239. It's 257 that they are after at PXG. "Hot." When Bob Parsons is talking about "right on the line," rest assured that line is not 239.

>

> There has been bad form aplenty by the tour "professional" who called Schauffele a "cheater," and perhaps by Callaway's tour staff and perhaps even by Schauffele himself insofar as he wrongly accused the R&A. But if you want a real villain in this, I give you Bob Parsons.

>

 

He's such a pathetic DB

[15th Club]

> @Stuart_G said:

> > @Fade said:

> > This situation could get really ugly if they develop a superior testing instrument / technique, that would allow for a 10x reduction in error tolerance down to about 2 us.

>

> Just my interpretation, but as I read it the 18us tolerance is an allowance for manufacturing tolerances of the heads, not a tolerance for the accuracy of the testing method/machine. The info in @DavePelz4 post about the test accuracy would seem to support that.

>

 

 

I think you are correct and if I had overlooked that in all of our discussion of random testing by the R&A at their Open Championship I thank you for noting it. Again, however; the selection of heads for use by sponsored elite level players —hot heads on the edge of compliance-plus-tolerance is deliberate on the part of manufacturers and elite players alike.

 

[Stuart_G]

> @"15th Club" said:

> I think you are correct and if I had overlooked that in all of our discussion of random testing by the R&A at their Open Championship I thank you for noting it.

 

If you have, it's not something I noticed.

 

> @"15th Club" said:

> Again, however; the selection of heads for use by sponsored elite level players —hot heads on the edge of compliance-plus-tolerance is deliberate on the part of manufacturers and elite players alike.

 

I don't doubt it at all that the OEM's are making their own judgements or analysis on the tolerances for their particular manufacturing processes as opposed to blindly using the 18us of the ruling bodies have incorporated into the tests. And I doubt they really mind that much if a few heads come out of the factory over the limit. I'm sure they normally expect to catch them before they get into the hands of a touring professional.

 

 

 

[SM8]

I find it interesting, one OEM gets called out for what all the OEM's are doing, and the haters on this site always find a way to trash BP and PXG

[bladehunter]

> @SM8 said:

> I find it interesting, one OEM gets called out for what all the OEM's are doing, and the haters on this site always find a way to trash BP and PXG

 

To be fair. Bob invites every word of criticism he gets. From elephants to rude letters to the membership. He causes the reactions he receives. Being a combat vet does not absolve one from being labeled based on personality.

[15th Club]

> @SM8 said:

> I find it interesting, one OEM gets called out for what all the OEM's are doing, and the haters on this site always find a way to trash BP and PXG

 

 

If I have ever posted a comment concerning Bob Parsons or PXG ever before this topic, I don’t recall it. I imagine that there might be a search feature that would facilitate a search of my screen name, Parsons and PXG. I invite anybody to take a shot at that if they wish.

 

Further; on the subject of rolling back golf ball performance specifications, I really do believe that no one in these forums has been more critical of Acushnet. Pointedly so, in that context.

 

So if you think this is some sort of golf-brand favoritism, I’m not your huckleberry.

 

[DavePelz4]

We needs to turn this into a full blown Soap Opera...I suggest "As the Xander Schauffles."

 

Anyhoo, in his statements yesterday regarding the alleged leak, Xander made an interesting comment on how it could have happened. He said the doors where the testing was done were open which is how players/caddies might have heard something.

 

However, that also means the testing was potentially done at different atmospheric conditions and temperatures than the driver might have been originally tested at by Cally, assuming Cally tested the drivers. It was in the low 60's at Portrush last Mon/Tuesday. We all know how cold/hot variance and other conditions impact distance so isn't it conceivable it impacted the testing?

[Stuart_G]

> @DavePelz4 said:

> It was in the low 60's at Portrush last Mon/Tuesday. We all know how cold/hot variance and other conditions impact distance so isn't it conceivable it impacted the testing?

 

In theory it's possible - but in reality I doubt very much that it's significant. The biggest impact on distance due to temperature comes from the ball materials and aerodynamics (higher density air). The polymers in the ball are much more susceptible to greater material property changes over that small change in temperature in that range than the metals of the face. In any case, also doubt the potential effects of temperature was ignored when the CT testing method was being designed and validated by the ruling bodies.

[15th Club]

> @DavePelz4 said:

> We needs to turn this into a full blown Soap Opera...I suggest "As the Xander Schauffles."

>

> Anyhoo, in his statements yesterday regarding the alleged leak, Xander made an interesting comment on how it could have happened. He said the doors where the testing was done were open which is how players/caddies might have heard something.

>

> However, that also means the testing was potentially done at different atmospheric conditions and temperatures than the driver might have been originally tested at by Cally, assuming Cally tested the drivers. It was in the low 60's at Portrush last Mon/Tuesday. We all know how cold/hot variance and other conditions impact distance so isn't it conceivable it impacted the testing?

 

 

So let's hammer this once and for all, okay? This is not a testing problem. This is not an atmospheric pressure problem. This is not a technical issue that the R&A overlooked and now must address.

 

This was a situation in which Schauffele was undoubtedly using what he thought, and probably had been assured, was a "hot" (mid-high 250 microcesonds) driver, but one that was under 257. I have every expectation that Callaway tested the head and marked it with how they found that test result.

 

But then the R&A tested it some time later, perhaps many months and possibly 5,000 ball strikes later, and -- oops -- unlike almost all of the other drivers tested by the R&A around the same time, Schauffele's Callaway was 258.

 

This all happened because Schauffele (with Callaway's aid and abetting) was not satisfied with a 239 (the actual intended limit) driver head. Callaway no doubt thought that Schauffele's driver was "hot" but legal. So too did Schauffele. But they were way past 239, and should have known so.

 

Memo to all other Tour players: if your tour van staff told you that they had a nice hot driver head for you and that it had been CT tested and was 256, don't be surprised and don't complain if the staff of one of golf's ruling bodies tests it and finds that it is 258 and cannot be used in competition. Because you were already pushing your luck with a head measured at 256.

 

 

 

[Pepperturbo]

As far as I know, equipment checking like Core has been conducted for years and random. Xander getting his panties in a wad as if he was targeted is childish. Least from what I have seen, he's the only one of those randomly picked that saw fit to whine poor me to social media. Pretty sad tell.

[15th Club]

By the way; the next time there is a press conference with Schauffele or with Callaway, I have a great series of questions for both of them.

**_When you first tested and built your "Royal Portrush" driver, what was the CT number on it? Was it ever tested again? If so, what was/were that/those numbers? Who has the driver head now, and would you agree to submit it for independent testing?_**

 

I presume that Schuaffele's driver was always, always testing in the 250's. Over the intended limit of 239 and deliberately pushing the boundary of the manufacturing tolerance allowance. Schauffele and the Callaway tour reps could speak to that.

[new2g0lf]

> @"15th Club" said:

> > @DavePelz4 said:

> > We needs to turn this into a full blown Soap Opera...I suggest "As the Xander Schauffles."

> >

> > Anyhoo, in his statements yesterday regarding the alleged leak, Xander made an interesting comment on how it could have happened. He said the doors where the testing was done were open which is how players/caddies might have heard something.

> >

> > However, that also means the testing was potentially done at different atmospheric conditions and temperatures than the driver might have been originally tested at by Cally, assuming Cally tested the drivers. It was in the low 60's at Portrush last Mon/Tuesday. We all know how cold/hot variance and other conditions impact distance so isn't it conceivable it impacted the testing?

>

>

> So let's hammer this once and for all, okay? This is not a testing problem. This is not an atmospheric pressure problem. This is not a technical issue that the R&A overlooked and now must address.

>

> This was a situation in which Schauffele was undoubtedly using what he thought, and probably had been assured, was a "hot" (mid-high 250 microcesonds) driver, but one that was under 257. I have every expectation that Callaway tested the head and marked it with how they found that test result.

>

> But then the R&A tested it some time later, perhaps many months and possibly 5,000 ball strikes later, and -- oops -- unlike almost all of the other drivers tested by the R&A around the same time, Schauffele's Callaway was 258.

>

> This all happened because Schauffele (with Callaway's aid and abetting) was not satisfied with a 239 (the actual intended limit) driver head. Callaway no doubt thought that Schauffele's driver was "hot" but legal. So too did Schauffele. But they were way past 239, and should have known so.

>

> Memo to all other Tour players: if your tour van staff told you that they had a nice hot driver head for you and that it had been CT tested and was 256, don't be surprised and don't complain if the staff of one of golf's ruling bodies tests it and finds that it is 258 and cannot be used in competition. Because you were already pushing your luck with a head measured at 256.

>

>

>

 

I agree, everyone wants an edge, the manufacturers know that and cater to it, i.e. the Bob Parsons quote. If an extra foot of distance is important to you, keep living on the edge and risk getting caught. What annoyed me is Xanders whining. Xander got caught with an out of spec driver, accept it and move on.

[aliikane]

I highly doubt Xander and Callaway were trying to sneak something under the radar. Does anybody really think that Callaway went to Xander and said "Hey, we have some hot non-conforming drivers that didn't pass the COR test. You want to put them in play? You might get an edge" Extremely unlikely. It doesn't seem logical at all that he would risk his career/reputation as well as Callaway's business/reputation for a few extra yards.

[aliikane]

> @Titletown said:

> > @"Canoe Paddler" said:

> > This is a very USGA look for the R&A. If 10+% of the sample failed the test, then there are probably at least 15 more guys playing with illegal equipment. What’s the point of testing for illegal equipment if everyone in the field is not held accountable?

>

> This is the point Xander was making. He said he was unfair to only test 30 players.

 

However, the main point he is making is that the matter should be kept private because publicly saying is a cheater can be damaging to his reputation and career that could affect getting sponsorships when there are a number of reasons why the driver is non-conforming.

[new2g0lf]

Callaway mass produced the ERC2 driver which was non-compliant so yes sometimes manufacturers in an attempt to gain a market advantage push the limits too far. Serious golfers know that drivers are at their max limits and it's very possible given the manufacturing process a low percentage of drivers roll off the production line non-compliant. it's on the manufacturer to ensure that the driver is compliant before they put it in the hands of their pro's. It may not be active or intentional cheating, but ignorance is usually not accepted as a valid excuse to break the rules or the law.

[15th Club]

> @aliikane said:

> > @Titletown said:

> > > @"Canoe Paddler" said:

> > > This is a very USGA look for the R&A. If 10+% of the sample failed the test, then there are probably at least 15 more guys playing with illegal equipment. What’s the point of testing for illegal equipment if everyone in the field is not held accountable?

> >

> > This is the point Xander was making. He said he was unfair to only test 30 players.

>

> However, the main point he is making is that the matter should be kept private because publicly saying is a cheater can be damaging to his reputation and career that could affect getting sponsorships when there are a number of reasons why the driver is non-conforming.

 

 

But Schauffele has already backed away from the vague, baseless allegation that the R&A “leaked” anything. Just maybe, the R&A informed the player and the manufacturer, properly, and then the Tour’s middle school gossip mongers took over.

[15th Club]

> @aliikane said:

> I highly doubt Xander and Callaway were trying to sneak something under the radar. Does anybody really think that Callaway went to Xander and said "Hey, we have some hot non-conforming drivers that didn't pass the COR test. You want to put them in play? You might get an edge" Extremely unlikely. It doesn't seem logical at all that he would risk his career/reputation as well as Callaway's business/reputation for a few extra yards.

 

 

I don’t think that they were trying to “sneak” anything. But I am certain that they had deliberately and knowingly used a head that measured way past 239. They were trying to get close to the limit after accounting for manufacturing tolerances. It was a hot head, like pretty much all the others on Tour.

 

[nsxguy]

> @Pepperturbo said:

> As far as I know, equipment checking like Core has been conducted for years and random. Xander getting his panties in a wad as if he was targeted is childish. Least from what I have seen, he's the only one of those randomly picked that saw fit to whine poor me to social media. Pretty sad tell.

 

I haven't been following this since the original story. Has something changed ? Because if not it's a pretty sad tell that you even post this in the first place.

 

Originally Xander was upset that a fellow pro called his a cheater. Whether it was in jest or not is not clear.

 

He was NOT (originally ?) ticked off or "whining" "as if he was targeted". His driver didn't pass and he had to get a different one. He was ticked off because others found out about it, something that was apparently supposed to be kept confidentials, and started in on him.