Jump to content

clevited

Advanced Members
  • Posts

    2,108
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

774 profile views

clevited's Achievements

240

Reputation

  1. Even if 48 inch drivers caught on, it was an existing rule, a limit set in place. Plus 48 inches was a reasonable length for even the tallest of player from what I have looked into. Even if 48 inch drivers caught on, they are still less accurate and always will be. Then again, if a player does adopt a 48 inch driver and manages to hit it accurately enough to get around a pga tour course and win, more power to them. That is a talent most will never ever have.
  2. 1) Longer clubs generally get heavier. (This corresponds to my point about making a weight per inch type of limit instead of effectively rolling back a length rule) 2) Longer clubs generally get harder to control and will always be harder to control. 3) Course mix on the tour limit the benefit of off the tee distance naturally. (As pointed out by myself earlier, the longest of the long have always hovered around that 315 to 320 mark since 2003) 4) Long drive guys use them because they only need to get ONE ball in play to win. Its sort of an arms race. You better max out everything and hope you catch one good because 5 extra mph of ball speed with the right launch conditions and in play could beat your opponent by one yard.
  3. What problems did you encounter? Can you provide a bit of detail regarding what you have to do to get the machine itself up and running (no simulation just LM numbers) and then what you had to do to get it working with simulation? Thanks!
  4. Good rant and I agree. All this new rule does is take a longer more comfortable club out of the hands of any taller player or future taller player, and takes it out of the hands of the currently testing or using players. This might not be many people but it doesn't matter. When the rule doesn't accomplish ANYTHING to tackle the "problem" the ruling bodies so desperately desire to do something about, it therefore is only for optics and has only a negative impact on the sport imo.
  5. I saw that today. I guess I want to see an average joe's review of it. Not even TXG review would satisfy me. I want completely unbiased user review. I might just have to do it myself once I get mine.
  6. Anyone get theirs yet? I want to see some reviews and see it in action. What exists so far on youtube is very dissatisfying imo.
  7. I just wanted to say that if you look at average driving distance, the top guys average hasn't changed much going all the way back to 2003. I have said this many times before in threads like this. The golf courses played on tour have a habit of limiting the useful distance. It essentially caps the longest of the long over the course of a season. 315-320 is where that cap lies and anything beyond that really isn't useful. There have been guys capable of what Bryson can do for a long time its just that most dial it back after a while on tour. The club length pseudo rule was needless and hurts more than it does anything at all for the optics of the tour, which is what this is all about. I am just going to keep suggesting things the USGA should really do if they want to cap things where they are at. They need to fill the holes not roll back existing ones. One example, they need to put a limit on club weight. That is the direction the industry has been headed for a long long time. Lighter overall weight of all clubs (mostly obtained by the shaft weights lowering) while still maintaining shaft stability. Case in point, autoflex. To be clear though, I don't want said limits, I am fine with how things are evolving now. I do however think that if the ruling bodies want to limit distance gains, there are holes they need to fill in order to do so. The weight is just one of them.
  8. Hitting it that far is akin to an MLB pitcher throwing 105 mph. They are rare and impressive physical anomalies that most all of us can't even fathom becoming. Much of the rest of the game of golf is within the physical realm of possibility for us average golfers. We can learn how to shape the ball, hit out of bunkers, hit a flop etc etc. We cannot however easily learn to swing 120+ mph, and even if we could, we cannot easily learn to hit the middle of the face nor can we easily learn to control the ball at those speeds. To me, and to what I honestly think is a vast majority, the long ball is the single most impressive physical capability of any golfer.
  9. I think they just need to accept that the game has changed and if they want to remain relevant, they need to keep working on updating rules that are objectively stupid, make the game more accessible and interesting to the next generation (by changing its image primarily), and fill in the equipment rules with stop gaps that don't roll anything back.
  10. I disagree about the play time thing. Par 3 courses exist for someone to get out and play a quick round. There are also places that have 3 or 4 hole practice courses. I would think those would take off in popularity if pace of play was as big of an issue as people say it is. Don't get me wrong, pace of play can definitely be a problem but at the same time, its sort of just a part of the game.
  11. No I don't. 18 holes of taking one's dear sweet time with every pre shot routine and putting stroke far out weigh a handful of errant drives. On the local muni, its usually the guys looking for free balls in the weeds that slow crap up combined with said habits people have. They add up over 18 holes to a lot of wasted time.
  12. I hear ya. I get passionate about it because it is a sport I am absolutely obsessed with and I despise beyond anything, objective stupidity infecting the game. Pretty sure I can prove beyond a doubt that the USGA is objectively stupid and said stupidity is infecting the game.
  13. I would think pace of play is WAY more effected by players own silly habits than any long bombers waiting to hit and losing a ball. One, there is a time limit to looking for your lost ball, and two they should have hit a provisional in play.
  14. Lets think through this together. -USGA wants to limit distance -USGA doesn't want bifurcation -USGA implements rule that doesn't make any kind of significant impact on distance at the professional or elite level -USGA implements rule that only effects the tours and elite golfing tournaments -USGA therefore Implements Bifurcation -USGA therefore didn't accomplish anything but optics, make taller players and those that did use longer drivers like Phil (and perhaps more) pissed off, and have also more than likely made it so this rule will eventually filter across the entirety of golf (think about it, it will become as such through peer adoption at your leagues and local tourneys in the future). This rule change is idiotic, and for nothing other than to say "looky, looky what we did, see all you small percentage of golf distance whiners, we did something!!" "See we do stuff with your money!!" -Meanwhile, the two highest profile players that have used or threatened to use such a club length are a 50 year old Phil that can't keep it in play no matter the length of the driver and Bryson whom has tried it and still can't condone its use on the tour due to consistency issues. How about USGA just make it so 48 inch driver would be too heavy to be that useful. This allows for it to be used by golfers that want it for comfort of swing or to slow their tempo, or whatever reason, while also limiting the raw distance benefit it can have. Doesn't seem like much critical thought ever goes on at the USGA.
  15. I checked with rep and he said if you have been emailed software you should be getting shipping notice shortly after but that was all he could tell me.
×
×
  • Create New...