Xander Schauffele's Callaway Driver Failed COR Test

[grm24]

Golf Digest story on driver testing on tour.

 

https://www.golfdigest.com/story/driver-testing-on-tour-what-happens-what-doesnt-and-what-probably-should

[P.E.]

The USGA rules indicate the following:

When a used club is pendulum tested (see Part 2 Section 4c(i)) in the field and a result in excess of 257 μs is attained, the specific club will

be deemed to be damaged into a non-conforming state, based on the presumption that it conformed when new and was included on the List of Conforming Driver Heads. As such, any individual club tested in excess of 257 μs will not be permitted to be used in play during any subsequent stipulated round since it does not conform to the Rules of Golf. The damage will be deemed to have occurred after the start of the previous stipulated round (i.e., prior to the field test), so that no retrospective penalties would be applied, unless the player had knowledge, prior to the field test, that the club did not conform.

 

So if XS's driver was previously hit he was not "cheating" as per the rules. If he did not put the driver in play after the test he was not "cheating".

[I_HATE_SNOW]

HOw do they know that the driver they test is the driver the player will use?

[pinhigh27]

This is all much ado about nothing. Like the guys who pay triple on bst for a tour head because it's 250 ct. It's literally like a yard difference. I guess if you need an exact face angle and loft sure, but the concept of buying a hotter driver because it's a few ct points higher and spending like triple for a head is hilarious to me.

[15th Club]

> @pinhigh27 said:

> This is all much ado about nothing. Like the guys who pay triple on bst for a tour head because it's 250 ct. It's literally like a yard difference. I guess if you need an exact face angle and loft sure, but the concept of buying a hotter driver because it's a few ct points higher and spending like triple for a head is hilarious to me.

 

 

What is really funny, is that the guys with the most to risk in terms of image, marketing, etc., are the Tour players and their tour van staffs. And yet how many of them are spec'ing heads and not accepting anything that tests in the low 240's? Those are the guys who are gaming the specifications. The teeny-tiny percentage of gray market ebay club nerds are one thing; but they are inconsequential. Virtually ever recreational player has no idea what his driver's CT is.

[bladehunter]

> @pinhigh27 said:

> This is all much ado about nothing. Like the guys who pay triple on bst for a tour head because it's 250 ct. It's literally like a yard difference. I guess if you need an exact face angle and loft sure, but the concept of buying a hotter driver because it's a few ct points higher and spending like triple for a head is hilarious to me.

 

I agree with you. But it comes about by serious players. Because of face angle and loft most often. And that’s an issue because of the wild variance in specs for retail heads vs the advertised loft.

 

You can order 3 10.5 lofted retail heads and when they arrive check them. Could have as much as 6 degree swing in actual loft. And face angles will follow open or closed with that loft. To a guy swinging 115-120 4 degrees loft might make a huge difference in spin and launch and face angle will effect direction when compared to the fitted preferential angle and loft. Buying a tour head is the only way to guarantee this from any oem except ping. You can order loft face angle and weight from ping and have a hand selected head.

[bladehunter]

> @"P.E." said:

> The USGA rules indicate the following:

> When a used club is pendulum tested (see Part 2 Section 4c(i)) in the field and a result in excess of 257 μs is attained, the specific club will

> be deemed to be damaged into a non-conforming state, based on the presumption that it conformed when new and was included on the List of Conforming Driver Heads. As such, any individual club tested in excess of 257 μs will not be permitted to be used in play during any subsequent stipulated round since it does not conform to the Rules of Golf. The damage will be deemed to have occurred after the start of the previous stipulated round (i.e., prior to the field test), so that no retrospective penalties would be applied, unless the player had knowledge, prior to the field test, that the club did not conform.

>

> So if XS's driver was previously hit he was not "cheating" as per the rules. If he did not put the driver in play after the test he was not "cheating".

 

 

Pretty much reads as 257 being the limit. No ?

[I_HATE_SNOW]

How many events did Xander play with this driver?

[15th Club]

> @I_HATE_SNOW said:

> How many events did Xander play with this driver?

 

12, I think. Although I don't think that is a big issue for anybody. Certainly not for me. But my understanding is that he put it in play at Torrey Pines in January (would make sense as he's a San Diego guy and was probably doing his own auditions in Carlsbad leading up to that event). And then 11 more events before The Open at Portrush.

 

This all began with overblown claims about Schauffele being a "cheater." I thought that was wrong, and still think so.

 

But what got me so worked up about this topic was Schauffele's baseless charge that the R&A did him wrong. Followed by ignorant sports fans' presumptions that the R&A was enforcing a picayune standard of just 1 microsecond that had no significant bearing on any real distance production. It was all bad information.

 

My point in these stories is that the more you know and understand, the clearer it becomes that the Ruling Bodies of golf have it right in case after case. This one was a particularly illustrative example.

 

 

 

[lopey986]

> @"15th Club" said:

> But what got me so worked up about this topic was Schauffele's baseless charge that the R&A did him wrong.

>

 

They did do him wrong, they leaked the results and it led to one of his peers on Tour calling him a cheater in a large setting of PGA players. R&A 100% in the wrong for leaking the results.

[15th Club]

> @lopey986 said:

> > @"15th Club" said:

> > But what got me so worked up about this topic was Schauffele's baseless charge that the R&A did him wrong.

> >

>

> They did do him wrong, they leaked the results and it led to one of his peers on Tour calling him a cheater in a large setting of PGA players. R&A 100% in the wrong for leaking the results.

 

 

Even Schauffele no longer claims that. It was never a sensible, credible claim.

 

Here you go:

https://www.golfchannel.com/news/xander-schauffele-clears-air-failed-driver-test-dont-think-ra-leaked-information

 

Boom. I don’t know how much worse I can make this for you. Let me know on that.

 

[DavePelz4]

> @"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.

>

>

>

 

As former NIU football coach Lee Corso would say on College Football Game Day..."Not so fast my friend..."

 

I agree with you on what happens to a driver face over repeated use. There's statistical data to support this. But because we're talking about microseconds, altitude and temperature do make a difference per Steve Aoyama, a principal scientist at Titleist. It's easier to see the impact on golf balls as opposed to clubs though. Because of lower density of air at altitude, there would be less resistance on the pendulum test which would make the pendulum move faster and the characteristic time could be impacted. It might only be a microsecond but that's what the club missed the tolerance by in the testing.

 

My point in continuing this debate is we're talking about something that impacts results by an inch or so. Is that really relevant? If the answer is yes, then every ball/club, etc. needs to be tested in the same place with the same conditions to eliminate any variable that could impact the outcome. It's also why every new club/ball/glove etc. goes to the single facility that does all the USAG testing in Far Hills, NJ in order to insure consistency in testing procedures.

 

Thank you for allowing the debate Sir.

[lopey986]

> @"15th Club" said:

> > @lopey986 said:

> > > @"15th Club" said:

> > > But what got me so worked up about this topic was Schauffele's baseless charge that the R&A did him wrong.

> > >

> >

> > They did do him wrong, they leaked the results and it led to one of his peers on Tour calling him a cheater in a large setting of PGA players. R&A 100% in the wrong for leaking the results.

>

>

> Even Schauffele no longer claims that. It was never a sensible, credible claim.

>

> Here you go:

> https://www.golfchannel.com/news/xander-schauffele-clears-air-failed-driver-test-dont-think-ra-leaked-information

>

> Boom. I don’t know how much worse I can make this for you. Let me know on that.

>

 

“The fact is it was leaked, some way or another, to caddies or other players on the range. During the testing time the door was wide open. I don’t know how it happened. [but] their intentions weren’t to ruin any player.”

 

And then he follows it up with that, which to me still reads like he DOES believe they leaked it. Also, who else would leak it if not the R&A or an R&A employee who oversaw the testing.

[Pepperturbo]

> @nsxguy said:

> > @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.

 

This issue is old news now but you can carry on. I am not arguing with you or anyone else that feels the sorry superficial need to defend someone they don't know. You can think whatever you like about me, my opinion is just as valid then as now, fair or not in your bias eyes. He went public because he was ticketed off claiming the R&A singled him out and leaked the mess with malice. That's whiny and adolescent like behavior.. I am done.

[bladehunter]

Nobody is defending “someone they don’t know “. What’s being defended is principle.

 

Fact. It was leaked some way somehow. And that’s a fail.

 

Fact . Tests are not uniform in consistency enough to claim “ it’s not a testing issue “

 

Fast. The rule words the limit to be 257 not 239.

 

Which points to a poorly written rule. One that assumes people will not seek any advantage great or small if allowed by the rule.

 

Andy he old adage that it’s “ manly to take it like said man and remain stoic in the face of contention “ might have made sense during the spaghetti western days. But it doesn’t now. You don’t have to worry about just your next door neighbors reaction to rumor. Now it’s the whole world. So when you see something that can be better , you say so.

 

I’m sure everyone agrees that this end result , with a guy 1 point over the rule being called a cheater while others who failed getting to remain anonymous , is a very flawed result. Yes ? So why not say something so it doesn’t happen to the next guy ?

[DFS PFD]

Anyone see the post about Titleist making JT switch drivers before the test because they knew his would fail? I bet there's a lot of head these guys know are too close to the 257 number on Tour. (I will try and find the link, apologies if this is old news)

[Pepperturbo]

> @bladehunter said:

> Nobody is defending “someone they don’t know “. What’s being defended is principle.

>

> Fact. It was leaked some way somehow. And that’s a fail.

>

> Fact . Tests are not uniform in consistency enough to claim “ it’s not a testing issue “

>

> Fast. The rule words the limit to be 257 not 239.

>

> Which points to a poorly written rule. One that assumes people will seek any advantage great or small if allowed by the rule.

 

People argue a "principle" that doesn't hold water, to the point they attack opinions that differ from theirs even people. That's adolescent behavior in my book of principles. Yes, it was leaked but I give the benefit of the doubt to the R&A. As for tests, they are whatever the R&A, USGA and any other management organization deem as a test, and it doesn't have to live up to your measure of uniform consistency. That same test was given to all others that were selected. May very well be a poorly written rule too, it's still an R&A rule, like it or not.

[bladehunter]

> @Pepperturbo said:

> > @bladehunter said:

> > Nobody is defending “someone they don’t know “. What’s being defended is principle.

> >

> > Fact. It was leaked some way somehow. And that’s a fail.

> >

> > Fact . Tests are not uniform in consistency enough to claim “ it’s not a testing issue “

> >

> > Fast. The rule words the limit to be 257 not 239.

> >

> > Which points to a poorly written rule. One that assumes people will seek any advantage great or small if allowed by the rule.

>

> People argue a "principle" that doesn't hold water, to the point they attack opinions that differ from theirs even people. That's adolescent behavior in my book of principles. Yes, it was leaked but I give the benefit of the doubt to the R&A. As for tests, they are whatever the R&A, USGA and any other management organization deem as a test, and it doesn't have to live up to your measure of uniform consistency. That same test was given to all others that were selected. May very well be a poorly written rule too, it's still an R&A rule, like it or not.

 

Isn’t that blind following though ? Not at all trying to point fingers at you directly. Just that line of thinking. I don’t personally believe that any institution should get a free pass on name. If the rules or actions are righteous , they will stand up to question.

[Stuart_G]

> @bladehunter said:

> Fact. It was leaked some way somehow. And that’s a fail.

 

I actually agree with you here. If the policy is that the results should be private, then they really need to do a better job to protect that privacy. In fact it even goes further in my mind. Xander should only have been made aware of his own test results, he should not have been made aware of any of the other failures.

 

> @bladehunter said:

> Fact . Tests are not uniform in consistency enough to claim “ it’s not a testing issue “

 

Sorry, there's been no facts about that presented here in this thread. The closest we got was the one second hand number (+/- 1 us) from @DavePelz4 but which also didn't have any clear context or conditions defined for that number. Everything else has been pure conjecture at best.

 

> @bladehunter said:

> Fast. The rule words the limit to be 257 not 239.

>

> Which points to a poorly written rule. One that assumes people will not seek any advantage great or small if allowed by the rule.

 

The rule might be written in a way that makes the selection of the particular number confusing, but that's really only means there is confusion in an irrelevant aspect of how the rule is written. The actual limit or passing/failing numbers are perfectly clear to all.

[bladehunter]

> @Stuart_G said:

> > @bladehunter said:

> > Fact. It was leaked some way somehow. And that’s a fail.

>

> I actually agree with you here. If the policy is that the results should be private, then they really need to do a better job to protect that privacy.

>

> > @bladehunter said:

> > Fact . Tests are not uniform in consistency enough to claim “ it’s not a testing issue “

>

> Sorry, there's been no facts about that presented here in this thread. The closest we got was the one second hand number (+/- 1 us) from @DavePelz4 but which also didn't have any clear context defined for that number. Everything else has been pure conjecture at best.

>

> > @bladehunter said:

> > Fast. The rule words the limit to be 257 not 239.

> >

> > Which points to a poorly written rule. One that assumes people will not seek any advantage great or small if allowed by the rule.

>

> The rule might be written in a way that makes the selection of the particular number confusing, but that's really only means there is confusion in an irrelevant aspect of how the rule is written. The actual limit or passing/failing numbers are perfectly clear to all.

 

Yea. I’ll concede #2 as hyperbole. Suppose “ fact” is strong.

 

What I meant by it was that it’s not proven to be accurate within the mentioned 6 points variance machine to machine or temp to temp etc. Testing Xander’s failed head on a separate machine and location or two independent of callaway and the R and A would help settle that.

 

As for the rule itself though. I don’t agree. It’s not clear to “ all”. As I’m part of all. That’s me assuming that to you it’s clear that 239 is the limit with a 18 point bit of wiggle room above that. It’s reads to me plainly that the limit is 257... this is where a penalty will be assessed.

I stand by the confusion and point to 15th clubs assertion that anyone knowingly going above low 240s is cheating the system and shouldn’t be given consideration for a test that’s 1 point over 257. Consideration being the questioning of the test accuracy. I’m not at all faulting him for his view. Just pointing it that it’s different than mine. And obviously most tour players including Xander. We tend to like a black /white rule. Not one with 18 shades of grey.

 

Next someone will say “ it is black white and 239 “. Sure. But every other player will be playing at 250 plus. There’s a psychological factor here that hasnt been mentioned. Any perceived advantage , no matter how small in actuality , is an advantage. And being a guy playing a 238 driver and knowing everyone else has a 252 is a real factor. And an unfair one. The rule should be written with no grey area and to do that they need a test that is as exact as can humanly be preformed.

[15th Club]

About Schauffele; I fell in love with his golf swing last year and told everybody I knew to watch him. He was my favorite among all of the youngest players on Tour.

 

But I am not going to work at trying to make sense out of his inconsistent claims concerning the R&A. I’m a lawyer. I want claims, and answers, to be stated clearly and precisely. I demand it.

 

On a handful of dimensions, Schauffele has been a Whitney dumbass in this kerfuffle. If he isn’t actually backing down after conceding that he didn’t think that the R&A leaked his CT result, it’s just a whole lot more dumbass in his part.

[Pepperturbo]

> @bladehunter said:

> > @Pepperturbo said:

> > > @bladehunter said:

> > > Nobody is defending “someone they don’t know “. What’s being defended is principle.

> > >

> > > Fact. It was leaked some way somehow. And that’s a fail.

> > >

> > > Fact . Tests are not uniform in consistency enough to claim “ it’s not a testing issue “

> > >

> > > Fast. The rule words the limit to be 257 not 239.

> > >

> > > Which points to a poorly written rule. One that assumes people will seek any advantage great or small if allowed by the rule.

> >

> > People argue a "principle" that doesn't hold water, to the point they attack opinions that differ from theirs even people. That's adolescent behavior in my book of principles. Yes, it was leaked but I give the benefit of the doubt to the R&A. As for tests, they are whatever the R&A, USGA and any other management organization deem as a test, and it doesn't have to live up to your measure of uniform consistency. That same test was given to all others that were selected. May very well be a poorly written rule too, it's still an R&A rule, like it or not.

>

> Isn’t that blind following though ? Not at all trying to point fingers at you directly. Just that line of thinking. I don’t personally believe that any institution should get a free pass on name. If the rules or actions are righteous , they will stand up to question.

 

You're welcome to your belief. I am not naturally skeptical or rebellious without reason so don't subscribe to that line of thought, plus I have held high-level leadership roles so aware there is more to those jobs than what meets the eye of those questioning that never step up. Giving the benefit of the doubt is not a free pass on the name either. It's respecting that the chosen men that take on the difficult jobs of leadership do so with qualifications. "Stand up to question" is fine if it's done with exacting purpose and guided by experience. Otherwise, it's comparable to an 18 index beginner telling a 2 index golfer the best way to play golf. IMO 99% of people on social media are not qualified to challenge experience, much less expect their challenge should be respected when they lack the substantive experience to base their beliefs on. At that point, it's nothing more than untested thought. Have a good day.

[15th Club]

> @DavePelz4 said:

> > @"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.

> >

> >

> >

>

> As former NIU football coach Lee Corso would say on College Football Game Day..."Not so fast my friend..."

>

> I agree with you on what happens to a driver face over repeated use. There's statistical data to support this. But because we're talking about microseconds, altitude and temperature do make a difference per Steve Aoyama, a principal scientist at Titleist. It's easier to see the impact on golf balls as opposed to clubs though. Because of lower density of air at altitude, there would be less resistance on the pendulum test which would make the pendulum move faster and the characteristic time could be impacted. It might only be a microsecond but that's what the club missed the tolerance by in the testing.

>

> My point in continuing this debate is we're talking about something that impacts results by an inch or so. Is that really relevant? If the answer is yes, then every ball/club, etc. needs to be tested in the same place with the same conditions to eliminate any variable that could impact the outcome. It's also why every new club/ball/glove etc. goes to the single facility that does all the USAG testing in Far Hills, NJ in order to insure consistency in testing procedures.

>

> Thank you for allowing the debate Sir.

 

 

Let’s agree that a few microsecond points in a CT test equate to nearly-insignificant yardage gains.

 

Okay.

 

Then tell it to the Tour players who are clamoring for heads that CT at 250+.

 

Tell it Bob Parsons who prides himself on building “a hot driver.”

 

My sympathies are 100% with the Ruling Bodies who have to understand the technology, craft rules and standards, and then enforce them despite the best efforts of manufacturers and millionaire players to push the boundaries.

[Stuart_G]

> @bladehunter said:

> What I meant by it was that it’s not proven to be accurate within the mentioned 6 points variance machine to machine or temp to temp etc. Testing Xander’s failed head on a separate machine and location or two independent of callaway and the R and A would help settle that.

 

Not in this thread. But then It hasn't been proven not to be accurate to any amount either. Any judgement on the accuracy - either way - is purely an assumption so far.

 

And where did the 6 point number come from?

 

 

> @bladehunter said:

> t’s reads to me plainly that the limit is 257... this is where a penalty will be assessed.

 

Which was my point.

 

> @bladehunter said:

> I stand by the confusion and point to 15th clubs assertion that anyone knowingly going above low 240s is cheating the system and shouldn’t be given consideration for a test that’s 1 point over 257.

> Consideration being the questioning of the test accuracy. I’m not at all faulting him for his view. Just pointing it that it’s different than mine. And obviously most tour players including Xander. We tend to like a black /white rule. Not one with 18 shades of grey.

 

I'll leave that for you and @"15th Club" to hash out. It's not about the rule itself or even how it's written. It's all unsubstantiated judgments and opinions (which don't need any substantiation) about what certain people are doing in light of the rule and why. That's not something I waste my time with.

 

I only thing I will say that the information on the accuracy of the tests is very likely fully available to the people making those decisions and therefore so are the chances for getting a failure in the random tests. At a minimum, it's their responsibility to find out before making those decisions.

 

Also there are other very valid reasons for a driver to go from pass to fail over time/usage that have nothing to do with how close to the limits might be pushed or the accuracy/repeatability of the test.

 

 

 

[bladehunter]

> @Pepperturbo said:

> > @bladehunter said:

> > > @Pepperturbo said:

> > > > @bladehunter said:

> > > > Nobody is defending “someone they don’t know “. What’s being defended is principle.

> > > >

> > > > Fact. It was leaked some way somehow. And that’s a fail.

> > > >

> > > > Fact . Tests are not uniform in consistency enough to claim “ it’s not a testing issue “

> > > >

> > > > Fast. The rule words the limit to be 257 not 239.

> > > >

> > > > Which points to a poorly written rule. One that assumes people will seek any advantage great or small if allowed by the rule.

> > >

> > > People argue a "principle" that doesn't hold water, to the point they attack opinions that differ from theirs even people. That's adolescent behavior in my book of principles. Yes, it was leaked but I give the benefit of the doubt to the R&A. As for tests, they are whatever the R&A, USGA and any other management organization deem as a test, and it doesn't have to live up to your measure of uniform consistency. That same test was given to all others that were selected. May very well be a poorly written rule too, it's still an R&A rule, like it or not.

> >

> > Isn’t that blind following though ? Not at all trying to point fingers at you directly. Just that line of thinking. I don’t personally believe that any institution should get a free pass on name. If the rules or actions are righteous , they will stand up to question.

>

> You're welcome to your belief. I am not naturally skeptical or rebellious without reason so don't subscribe to that line of thought, plus I have held high-level leadership roles so aware there is more to those jobs than what meets the eye of those questioning that never step up. Giving the benefit of the doubt is not a free pass on the name either. It's respecting that the chosen men that take on the difficult jobs of leadership do so with qualifications. "Stand up to question" is fine if it's done with exacting purpose and guided by experience. Otherwise, it's comparable to an 18 index beginner telling a 2 index golfer the best way to play golf. IMO 99% of people on social media are not qualified to challenge experience, much less expect their challenge should be respected when they lack the substantive experience to base their beliefs on. At that point, it's nothing more than untested thought. Have a good day.

 

Also more pieces to the worlds problems.

 

“ that never stood up “. Leads me to think that you insinuate that Xander or anyone else can simply volunteer to run the R and A? Which is laughable.

 

And to contradict that idea you then say that most people are not “ qualified to challenge because they lack the substantive experience to base their beliefs on”. Isn’t that a self fulfilling prophecy? Call people out for not having leadership roles , which are only available to those with pinpoint connections , and then tell them their opinions are worthless because they lack the experience that those next to impossible to attain leadership roles provide ...???

 

So In a nut shell “ shut up idiot and let the ruling class tell you how to think “. Sounds pretty much like a page from the “dictatorships for dummy’s “ cliffsnotes.

[bladehunter]

> @Stuart_G said:

> > @bladehunter said:

> > What I meant by it was that it’s not proven to be accurate within the mentioned 6 points variance machine to machine or temp to temp etc. Testing Xander’s failed head on a separate machine and location or two independent of callaway and the R and A would help settle that.

>

> Not in this thread. But then It hasn't been proven not to be accurate to any amount either. Any judgement on the accuracy - either way - is purely an assumption so far.

>

> And where did the 6 point number come from?

>

>

> > @bladehunter said:

> > t’s reads to me plainly that the limit is 257... this is where a penalty will be assessed.

>

> Which was my point.

>

> > @bladehunter said:

> > I stand by the confusion and point to 15th clubs assertion that anyone knowingly going above low 240s is cheating the system and shouldn’t be given consideration for a test that’s 1 point over 257.

> > Consideration being the questioning of the test accuracy. I’m not at all faulting him for his view. Just pointing it that it’s different than mine. And obviously most tour players including Xander. We tend to like a black /white rule. Not one with 18 shades of grey.

>

> I'll leave that for you and @"15th Club" to hash out. It's not about the rule itself or even how it's written. It's all unsubstantiated judgments and opinions (which don't need any substantiation) about what certain people are doing in light of the rule and why. That's not something I waste my time with.

>

> I only thing I will say that the information on the accuracy of the tests is very likely fully available to the people making those decisions and therefore so are the chances for getting a failure in the random tests. At a minimum, it's their responsibility to find out before making those decisions.

>

> Also there are other very valid reasons for a driver to go from pass to fail over time/usage that have nothing to do with how close to the limits might be pushed or the accuracy/repeatability of the test.

>

>

>

 

Yep. I’ll agree there. We do not have all of enough info. For sure. And I bet there is more out there that would ease my wonders.

 

Nothing for 15 and I to hash out. We just read it differently. Each opinion based on how we feel convicted by the rule. I’m a natural boundary pusher ( shocker I know ). And love a really firm pass fail line. I’m not tempted to stray that way. Give me a grace period and I’m likely to use it. But say “ be here 12 am sharp “ and I’m there at 1145. Every time. That’s all. Just a curiosity as to why it’s written with that large of a grey spot.

[DavePelz4]

> @"15th Club" said:

> > @DavePelz4 said:

> > > @"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.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> >

> > As former NIU football coach Lee Corso would say on College Football Game Day..."Not so fast my friend..."

> >

> > I agree with you on what happens to a driver face over repeated use. There's statistical data to support this. But because we're talking about microseconds, altitude and temperature do make a difference per Steve Aoyama, a principal scientist at Titleist. It's easier to see the impact on golf balls as opposed to clubs though. Because of lower density of air at altitude, there would be less resistance on the pendulum test which would make the pendulum move faster and the characteristic time could be impacted. It might only be a microsecond but that's what the club missed the tolerance by in the testing.

> >

> > My point in continuing this debate is we're talking about something that impacts results by an inch or so. Is that really relevant? If the answer is yes, then every ball/club, etc. needs to be tested in the same place with the same conditions to eliminate any variable that could impact the outcome. It's also why every new club/ball/glove etc. goes to the single facility that does all the USAG testing in Far Hills, NJ in order to insure consistency in testing procedures.

> >

> > Thank you for allowing the debate Sir.

>

>

> Let’s agree that a few microsecond points in a CT test equate to nearly-insignificant yardage gains.

>

> Okay.

>

> Then tell it to the Tour players who are clamoring for heads that CT at 250+.

>

> Tell it Bob Parsons who prides himself on building “a hot driver.”

>

> My sympathies are 100% with the Ruling Bodies who have to understand the technology, craft rules and standards, and then enforce them despite the best efforts of manufacturers and millionaire players to push the boundaries.

 

With you on BP...let's put him on the side for our purposes.

 

As a barrister, if you were arguing in front of a jury of golfers, could you make an argument that 1 microsecond is cause for reasonable doubt?

[Stuart_G]

> @bladehunter said:

> Just a curiosity as to why it’s written with that large of a grey spot.

 

I'm curious why it's written with ANY gray spot. As far as I'm concerned, it should be "the limit is X ". I can't believe that they would actually think the OEM's would pay any attention to the 239 number when designing the clubs. It doesn't even match the 0.830 COR limit that the rules are based on.

 

 

[DFS PFD]

> @Stuart_G said:

> > @bladehunter said:

> > Just a curiosity as to why it’s written with that large of a grey spot.

>

> I'm curious why it's written with ANY gray spot. As far as I'm concerned, it should be "the limit is X ". I can't believe that they would actually think the OEM's would pay any attention to the 239 number when designing the clubs. It doesn't even match the 0.830 COR limit that the rules are based on.

>

>

 

Manufacturer's likely played a large role in writing the rule to allow lenience in manufacturing and room for them to "play" would be my guess. Likely all smoke and mirrors.

[15th Club]

Under no circumstances is or was “one microsecond” a matter of reasonable doubt. Schauffele’s driver might have tested at 256 or 255 or whatever, back in January. Whatever it was, they had to be saying, “Wow, this one is hot. But it tests legal.” And later on, being so close, it did test over the limit.

 

239 microseconds is the legal specification. If your driver is in the 250’s, and you are a Tour player who could be tested, you are way over the intended manufacturing standard and asking for trouble.