Joanne Carner's 30 year old R-90 wedge= 'busted'

[NRJyzr]

When guys who are nearing 60 years of age are 40 yards longer than they were in their prime, that's the ball.

 

 

 

I'm amazed you think it's the ball when there's something much more obvious on the screen in every telecast

 

[NRJyzr]

Adding a bit of my own math...

 

Old ODS was a max of 296 yds at 108 mph. That's 2.74 yds per mph.

New ODS is a max of 320 yds at 120 mph. That's 2.67 yds per mph.

 

Old test was with a laminate, widely reported as providing a COR of .78. The new test is performed with a modern titanium driver with a COR of .83. When the COR debate was going at its peak, it was calculated the gain was approximately 6 yds from the metal woods in use in the late 90s. Those woods were said to be at .80 COR. If we accept 6 yds for a .03 gain in COR, the gain from .78 to .83 would give us 10 yds.

 

So, the switch from the old test to the new provides us with an extra 10 yds provided by the clubhead. Any ball passing the new test is therefore 10 yds shorter than what it might have been, had the new test been done with the old clubhead. This means that 320 yds is really more like 310 yds at 120 mph, which is 2.58 yds per mph.

 

When the new ODS was implemented, it was said no balls that passed the old test had failed the new test.

 

So we have old balls at 2.74 yds per mph, and new at 2.58 per mph. It was rolled back, but no one noticed.

 

How is ball longer now than it was then?

[birly-shirly]

Adding a bit of my own math...

 

Old ODS was a max of 296 yds at 108 mph. That's 2.74 yds per mph.

New ODS is a max of 320 yds at 120 mph. That's 2.67 yds per mph.

 

Old test was with a laminate, widely reported as providing a COR of .78. The new test is performed with a modern titanium driver with a COR of .83. When the COR debate was going at its peak, it was calculated the gain was approximately 6 yds from the metal woods in use in the late 90s. Those woods were said to be at .80 COR. If we accept 6 yds for a .03 gain in COR, the gain from .78 to .83 would give us 10 yds.

 

So, the switch from the old test to the new provides us with an extra 10 yds provided by the clubhead. Any ball passing the new test is therefore 10 yds shorter than what it might have been, had the new test been done with the old clubhead. This means that 320 yds is really more like 310 yds at 120 mph, which is 2.58 yds per mph.

 

When the new ODS was implemented, it was said no balls that passed the old test had failed the new test.

 

So we have old balls at 2.74 yds per mph, and new at 2.58 per mph. It was rolled back, but no one noticed.

 

How is ball longer now than it was then?

 

Not sure I'm following this correctly, but are you assuming that "premium" balls were at the old limit?

 

As I recall, through the 80s, there were 2 piece distance balls, which went further than 3-piece surlyn covered balls, which went further than the 3-piece balatas that most good players used. If the Top Flites of the day were compliant with the standard, then the ball used on tour was well short of the statutory max.

[NRJyzr]

Adding a bit of my own math...

 

Old ODS was a max of 296 yds at 108 mph. That's 2.74 yds per mph.

New ODS is a max of 320 yds at 120 mph. That's 2.67 yds per mph.

 

Old test was with a laminate, widely reported as providing a COR of .78. The new test is performed with a modern titanium driver with a COR of .83. When the COR debate was going at its peak, it was calculated the gain was approximately 6 yds from the metal woods in use in the late 90s. Those woods were said to be at .80 COR. If we accept 6 yds for a .03 gain in COR, the gain from .78 to .83 would give us 10 yds.

 

So, the switch from the old test to the new provides us with an extra 10 yds provided by the clubhead. Any ball passing the new test is therefore 10 yds shorter than what it might have been, had the new test been done with the old clubhead. This means that 320 yds is really more like 310 yds at 120 mph, which is 2.58 yds per mph.

 

When the new ODS was implemented, it was said no balls that passed the old test had failed the new test.

 

So we have old balls at 2.74 yds per mph, and new at 2.58 per mph. It was rolled back, but no one noticed.

 

How is ball longer now than it was then?

 

Not sure I'm following this correctly, but are you assuming that "premium" balls were at the old limit?

 

As I recall, through the 80s, there were 2 piece distance balls, which went further than 3-piece surlyn covered balls, which went further than the 3-piece balatas that most good players used. If the Top Flites of the day were compliant with the standard, then the ball used on tour was well short of the statutory max.

 

 

I'm not assuming they were at the limit. I know they were short of it.

 

I see no good reason to hold anything newer to anything less than the limit, due to players of yore choosing to use balls that limited their distance.

[birly-shirly]

Fair enough. But I read Shallowface's argument as being about the performance of the ball as it's played on tour.

 

Your argument seems to be about regulation.

 

In which case, each of your arguments could be correct without necessarily disproving the other.

[NRJyzr]

Fair enough. But I read Shallowface's argument as being about the performance of the ball as it's played on tour.

 

Your argument seems to be about regulation.

 

In which case, each of your arguments could be correct without necessarily disproving the other.

 

 

I don't see it that way. He's saying the ball is responsible for the increase in distance. I'm pointing out that, due to the testing in place, it's not possible*, and that the modern ball is only allowed to be somewhat shorter than what was allowed in the 90s and earlier.

 

*evident in the modest <6 yard gain from the en masse switch away from wound balls in 2000 and 2001

[wkuo3]

I'm going to tell Jack Nicklaus and a slew of the others whom been through the changes that they are wrong in their assumption of the modern golf balls being part of the reason why golfers hit it so far today.

I for one don't have 115 MPH swing speed but I do know for my game the new golf balls travels much farther then the older models. I'm talking about even from just 10 years ago.

 

Funny thing is, different result from the same driver with different golf balls on different days. I hope this is not too confusing.

 

I know some of us wiil not be able to make more than 2 turns at a time.

[NRJyzr]

Maybe Jack can explain how he was hitting a wound ball 330 to 350 yds (documented) in competition, with a sub-190cc metal wood, at age 50 no less....

 

Selective memory is a lovely thing.

[wkuo3]

Maybe Jack can explain how he was hitting a wound ball 330 to 350 yds (documented) in competition, with a sub-190cc metal wood, at age 50 no less....

 

Selective memory is a lovely thing.

 

Sorry, you're comparing facts that's decades apart in time.

[NRJyzr]

Maybe Jack can explain how he was hitting a wound ball 330 to 350 yds (documented) in competition, with a sub-190cc metal wood, at age 50 no less....

 

Selective memory is a lovely thing.

 

Sorry, you're comparing facts that's decades apart in time.

 

 

And you're basing intelligence on the ability to hit a golf ball. LOL

[Shallowface]

Adding a bit of my own math...

 

Old ODS was a max of 296 yds at 108 mph. That's 2.74 yds per mph.

New ODS is a max of 320 yds at 120 mph. That's 2.67 yds per mph.

 

Old test was with a laminate, widely reported as providing a COR of .78. The new test is performed with a modern titanium driver with a COR of .83. When the COR debate was going at its peak, it was calculated the gain was approximately 6 yds from the metal woods in use in the late 90s. Those woods were said to be at .80 COR. If we accept 6 yds for a .03 gain in COR, the gain from .78 to .83 would give us 10 yds.

 

So, the switch from the old test to the new provides us with an extra 10 yds provided by the clubhead. Any ball passing the new test is therefore 10 yds shorter than what it might have been, had the new test been done with the old clubhead. This means that 320 yds is really more like 310 yds at 120 mph, which is 2.58 yds per mph.

 

When the new ODS was implemented, it was said no balls that passed the old test had failed the new test.

 

So we have old balls at 2.74 yds per mph, and new at 2.58 per mph. It was rolled back, but no one noticed.

 

How is ball longer now than it was then?

 

Thanks for your info, and all of your posts.

 

It's always time well spent when it's spent searching for the truth.

[BIG STU]

Anyone have the spec for the Wilson R-90 wedge ?

 

I know there are several version of the R-90. I believe mine from the early 70's has a 56° loft but have no idea of the bounce , sure felt like a 12°-14° to it.

When I read that you asked I checked the pristine one I have-- On my Loft and Lie machine it checks at 55* and with my Maltby gauge it checks at 14* of bounce. I had never put that club on the machine and it does not have any bend marks. So I would say it is straight off the trailer

[Shilgy]

Give me a break, this rule has been in existence since 2010. If you haven't conformed to the rules for tournament play by now you deserve to be DQ'd.

Sure-because a 79 year old woman had certainly reason to worry about a groove rule. Am'I'right?

[BIG STU]

When guys who are nearing 60 years of age are 40 yards longer than they were in their prime, that's the ball.

 

 

 

I'm amazed you think it's the ball when there's something much more obvious on the screen in every telecast

 

IMHO it is a combination of 3 things---- Driver wise it is the metal heads--- IMHO again the biggest factor is the shafts--- and then the ball---- Irons it is a combination of shafts and jacked lofts. One other Thing on irons also with a CB or GI type is those two piece carpenter steel faces the ball does come off hot on those even a balata ball

[BIG STU]

Maybe Jack can explain how he was hitting a wound ball 330 to 350 yds (documented) in competition, with a sub-190cc metal wood, at age 50 no less....

 

Selective memory is a lovely thing.

Snicker snicker cough cough--- Well you do know those Bridgestone J's Professional weapons were one hot SOB----- LOL just saying :rolleyes:

[NRJyzr]

Maybe Jack can explain how he was hitting a wound ball 330 to 350 yds (documented) in competition, with a sub-190cc metal wood, at age 50 no less....

 

Selective memory is a lovely thing.

Snicker snicker cough cough--- Well you do know those Bridgestone J's Professional weapons were one hot SOB----- LOL just saying :rolleyes:

 

 

I should spend some more time on the course with mine, especially now that I am done with the tournament I'd had on the horizon (we came in 2nd to a team that holed out for eagle twice). I've played a few holes here and there with it, but not close to a full round. The times I've hit it, it will hit to the same places on the course that I hit my King LTD.

 

Low spin is king.

[wkuo3]

Anyone have the spec for the Wilson R-90 wedge ?

 

I know there are several version of the R-90. I believe mine from the early 70's has a 56° loft but have no idea of the bounce , sure felt like a 12°-14° to it.

When I read that you asked I checked the pristine one I have-- On my Loft and Lie machine it checks at 55* and with my Maltby gauge it checks at 14* of bounce. I had never put that club on the machine and it does not have any bend marks. So I would say it is straight off the trailer

 

Thank you !

[baloo]

Maybe Jack can explain how he was hitting a wound ball 330 to 350 yds (documented) in competition, with a sub-190cc metal wood, at age 50 no less....

 

Selective memory is a lovely thing.

Snicker snicker cough cough--- Well you do know those Bridgestone J's Professional weapons were one hot SOB----- LOL just saying :rolleyes:

 

To be fair, he averaged 270 something off the tee, not 300+ like he would with today's stuff.

So his criticism is completely fair IMO. The only thing I think he's wrong about is he only talks about the ball, which just wouldn't be enough. You need to roll back the driver too.

[baloo]

Maybe this isn't the right thread, but I've posted this elsewhere and thought I'd put this here for those interested. The average driving average over time based on data taken from PGATour.com. 1980 to 2017 is a 36 yard difference. 94' to 04' is where most the gains are (about 26 yards).

 

 

[Tumbleweed_1968]

Check this out from today:

 

 

I know conditions are dry, but that is ridiculous.

[SteveNZ]

Check this out from today:

 

 

I know conditions are dry, but that is ridiculous.

 

Wind was probably stronger when his group teed off too. But still!

[NRJyzr]

When the course is letting 5 irons reach bunkers at 270, I think you have to take driving distance with a substantial grain of salt. LOL

[SteveNZ]

When the course is letting 5 irons reach bunkers at 270, I think you have to take driving distance with a substantial grain of salt. LOL

 

Certainly in this case. That track is BROWN.

[SteveNZ]

Fun fact from which nothing should be implied - all but 30 players in the field averaged over 300 yards off the tee on those holes on which measurements were taken.

 

Interestingly, Speith and Woodland were two of the guys under 300 yards.

 

(Longest Average drive is based on an average taken from the drives recorded on holes 6 and 10)

 

https://www.theopen.com/playerstats/fulllist#!/avgdrive?group=1

[Swingingk]

Check this out from today:

 

 

I know conditions are dry, but that is ridiculous.

 

Some of those stats remind me of my golfing buddies - big man off the tee but not so much on the FIR's and GIR's. To me this exemplifies the whole issue: big distance driver technology works great for a pro with good control, but from my observations it usually just means deeper into the bush or farther OB for the average Joe. I know a "big drive" makes up a huge part of modern golf but i wonder sometimes if the modern woods dont drive more people away from the game than they do attract people into it. Not Wrx guys of course, but average hack.

Maybe the big names should offer a massive, rules-be-damned, super-forgiving, super loud and super straight driver that keeps it under 230 yards. I betcha that would sell like hotcakes.

 

[scomac2002]

Check this out from today:

 

 

I know conditions are dry, but that is ridiculous.

 

Some of those stats remind me of my golfing buddies - big man off the tee but not so much on the FIR's and GIR's. To me this exemplifies the whole issue: big distance driver technology works great for a pro with good control, but from my observations it usually just means deeper into the bush or farther OB for the average Joe. I know a "big drive" makes up a huge part of modern golf but i wonder sometimes if the modern woods dont drive more people away from the game than they do attract people into it. Not Wrx guys of course, but average hack.

Maybe the big names should offer a massive, rules-be-damned, super-forgiving, super loud and super straight driver that keeps it under 230 yards. I betcha that would sell like hotcakes.

 

Not really. They already tried that. Nike brought out a series of super-forgiving, super loud, super straight drivers in the 2000's with the SQ moniker. They were square and bright yellow; thus ended the love affair... I've got a full set -- driver, 4W, 7W -- that stand at the ready in the back-up bag. They still hit the ball arrow straight and they're not that short either!

[Tumbleweed_1968]

Check this out from today:

 

 

I know conditions are dry, but that is ridiculous.

 

Some of those stats remind me of my golfing buddies - big man off the tee but not so much on the FIR's and GIR's. To me this exemplifies the whole issue: big distance driver technology works great for a pro with good control, but from my observations it usually just means deeper into the bush or farther OB for the average Joe. I know a "big drive" makes up a huge part of modern golf but i wonder sometimes if the modern woods dont drive more people away from the game than they do attract people into it. Not Wrx guys of course, but average hack.

Maybe the big names should offer a massive, rules-be-damned, super-forgiving, super loud and super straight driver that keeps it under 230 yards. I betcha that would sell like hotcakes.

 

Not really. They already tried that. Nike brought out a series of super-forgiving, super loud, super straight drivers in the 2000's with the SQ moniker. They were square and bright yellow; thus ended the love affair... I've got a full set -- driver, 4W, 7W -- that stand at the ready in the back-up bag. They still hit the ball arrow straight and they're not that short either!

Saw one of those in the thrift store the other day... I passed on it. Maybe I should go back and see if it is still there...

[wkuo3]

Anyone have the spec for the Wilson R-90 wedge ?

 

I know there are several version of the R-90. I believe mine from the early 70's has a 56° loft but have no idea of the bounce , sure felt like a 12°-14° to it.

When I read that you asked I checked the pristine one I have-- On my Loft and Lie machine it checks at 55* and with my Maltby gauge it checks at 14* of bounce. I had never put that club on the machine and it does not have any bend marks. So I would say it is straight off the trailer

 

finally got a chance to take the R-90 out for a round today.

Didn't get into the bunkers but , plenty of greenside shots, from the rough, first cut and hard-pan. I must say, although the R-90 performed very well I thought it did not do anything amazingly different than modern wedge.

I still like it a lot but can't see where the non-conforming issue would be.

 

Anyone know up-date form the USGA for the reasons of non-conforming or the old gals had "sharpen" the grooves on an old wedge to cause the grooves being non-conforming ?

[mocokid]

Anyone have the spec for the Wilson R-90 wedge ?

 

I know there are several version of the R-90. I believe mine from the early 70's has a 56° loft but have no idea of the bounce , sure felt like a 12°-14° to it.

When I read that you asked I checked the pristine one I have-- On my Loft and Lie machine it checks at 55* and with my Maltby gauge it checks at 14* of bounce. I had never put that club on the machine and it does not have any bend marks. So I would say it is straight off the trailer

 

finally got a chance to take the R-90 out for a round today.

Didn't get into the bunkers but , plenty of greenside shots, from the rough, first cut and hard-pan. I must say, although the R-90 performed very well I thought it did not do anything amazingly different than modern wedge.

I still like it a lot but can't see where the non-conforming issue would be.

 

Anyone know up-date form the USGA for the reasons of non-conforming or the old gals had "sharpen" the grooves on an old wedge to cause the grooves being non-conforming ?

 

Nuff said, you aint man enough to light my heater, mr USGA tight pants.