Xander Schauffele's Callaway Driver Failed COR Test

[buckeyefl]

> @Barfolomew said:

> > @buckeyefl said:

> > > @Barfolomew said:

> > > Sammy Sosa got a lot of crap for using a dirty bat like he should of! Xander got busted with a dirty club... then he says test the other guys cause Im not the only cheater hahaha Lame Cheater!!!!

> >

> > Back under your bridge foul creature.

>

> Foul is fair

> and fair is foul

> Cheaters lurk

> and reap dispair

 

Trip, trap, trip, trap, trip, trap, went the bridge.

 

"Who's that tripping over my bridge?"

[Barfolomew]

> @buckeyefl said:

> > @Barfolomew said:

> > > @buckeyefl said:

> > > > @Barfolomew said:

> > > > Sammy Sosa got a lot of crap for using a dirty bat like he should of! Xander got busted with a dirty club... then he says test the other guys cause Im not the only cheater hahaha Lame Cheater!!!!

> > >

> > > Back under your bridge foul creature.

> >

> > Foul is fair

> > and fair is foul

> > Cheaters lurk

> > and reap dispair

>

> Trip, trap, trip, trap, trip, trap, went the bridge.

>

> "Who's that tripping over my bridge?"

 

Not a cheater

[Holy Moses]

> @Stuart_G said:

> > @"Holy Moses" said:

> > > @QMany said:

> > >

> >

> > Callaway purposefully gave Xander a sorta illegal driver. It was over the limit, but in front of buffer. If companies are going to intentionally give players drivers that are in the buffer zone, if they fail that’s 100% on them. I say get rid of the buffer. If you test at 240, it’s non-conforming.

>

> No, not even 'sorta'. All heads in the buffer zone are fully conforming. That's the whole point of the buffer zone - that heads will generally stay conforming despite the manufacturing tolerances. It's not even a little non-conforming until it gets past 257.

>

 

“Generally stay conforming” isn’t good enough because through use and manufacturing tolerances and different CT measuring devices a club can become non-conforming. The buffer zone wasn't made to let manufacturers put the club over the limit from the get-go. It was a safe zone. Callaway and other manufacturers are purposefully riding a millimeter from the edge and then saying it was an accident once something bad happens. Then took advantage of the USGA and R&A’s good graces. I’m glad this leaked. And Xander knew or should have known this was happening.

[15th Club]

> @"Holy Moses" said:

> > @Stuart_G said:

> > > @"Holy Moses" said:

> > > > @QMany said:

> > > >

> > >

> > > Callaway purposefully gave Xander a sorta illegal driver. It was over the limit, but in front of buffer. If companies are going to intentionally give players drivers that are in the buffer zone, if they fail that’s 100% on them. I say get rid of the buffer. If you test at 240, it’s non-conforming.

> >

> > No, not even 'sorta'. All heads in the buffer zone are fully conforming. That's the whole point of the buffer zone - that heads will generally stay conforming despite the manufacturing tolerances. It's not even a little non-conforming until it gets past 257.

> >

>

> “Generally stay conforming” isn’t good enough because through use and manufacturing tolerances and different CT measuring devices a club can become non-conforming. The buffer zone wasn't made to let manufacturers put the club over the limit from the get-go. It was a safe zone. Callaway and other manufacturers are purposefully riding a millimeter from the edge and then saying it was an accident once something bad happens. Then took advantage of the USGA and R&A’s good graces. I’m glad this leaked. And Xander knew or should have known this was happening.

 

 

I don’t think there was any “leak” as we commonly understand that term but I agree with you that I am glad this story is out. As an exemplar of golf equipment technology’s ongoing war to create distance through something other than skill. And how quickly the manufacturers (with hungry, hyper-competitive players all over it) would blow through any limitation that wasn’t strictly enforced by the USGA. I can think of few recent stories that better demonstrated the essential role played by golf’s ruling bodies.

[J13]

So apparently a TM head and Ping head failed the CT test at The Open. Where are their statements?

[bladehunter]

> @"Holy Moses" said:

> > @QMany said:

> >

>

> Callaway purposefully gave Xander a sorta illegal driver. It was over the limit, but in front of buffer. If companies are going to intentionally give players drivers that are in the buffer zone, if they fail that’s 100% on them. I say get rid of the buffer. If you test at 240, it’s non-conforming.

 

Not really. Isn’t illegal until 258.

[bladehunter]

E> @"15th Club" said:

> > @"Holy Moses" said:

> > > @Stuart_G said:

> > > > @"Holy Moses" said:

> > > > > @QMany said:

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > > Callaway purposefully gave Xander a sorta illegal driver. It was over the limit, but in front of buffer. If companies are going to intentionally give players drivers that are in the buffer zone, if they fail that’s 100% on them. I say get rid of the buffer. If you test at 240, it’s non-conforming.

> > >

> > > No, not even 'sorta'. All heads in the buffer zone are fully conforming. That's the whole point of the buffer zone - that heads will generally stay conforming despite the manufacturing tolerances. It's not even a little non-conforming until it gets past 257.

> > >

> >

> > “Generally stay conforming” isn’t good enough because through use and manufacturing tolerances and different CT measuring devices a club can become non-conforming. The buffer zone wasn't made to let manufacturers put the club over the limit from the get-go. It was a safe zone. Callaway and other manufacturers are purposefully riding a millimeter from the edge and then saying it was an accident once something bad happens. Then took advantage of the USGA and R&A’s good graces. I’m glad this leaked. And Xander knew or should have known this was happening.

>

>

> I don’t think there was any “leak” as we commonly understand that term but I agree with you that I am glad this story is out. As an exemplar of golf equipment technology’s ongoing war to create distance through something other than skill. And how quickly the manufacturers (with hungry, hyper-competitive players all over it) would blow through any limitation that wasn’t strictly enforced by the USGA. I can think of few recent stories that better demonstrated the essential role played by golf’s ruling bodies.

 

Oh good grief. They used the rule as written. Blame the rules author if you don’t like the loophole.

[15th Club]

> @bladehunter said:

> E> @"15th Club" said:

> > > @"Holy Moses" said:

> > > > @Stuart_G said:

> > > > > @"Holy Moses" said:

> > > > > > @QMany said:

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > Callaway purposefully gave Xander a sorta illegal driver. It was over the limit, but in front of buffer. If companies are going to intentionally give players drivers that are in the buffer zone, if they fail that’s 100% on them. I say get rid of the buffer. If you test at 240, it’s non-conforming.

> > > >

> > > > No, not even 'sorta'. All heads in the buffer zone are fully conforming. That's the whole point of the buffer zone - that heads will generally stay conforming despite the manufacturing tolerances. It's not even a little non-conforming until it gets past 257.

> > > >

> > >

> > > “Generally stay conforming” isn’t good enough because through use and manufacturing tolerances and different CT measuring devices a club can become non-conforming. The buffer zone wasn't made to let manufacturers put the club over the limit from the get-go. It was a safe zone. Callaway and other manufacturers are purposefully riding a millimeter from the edge and then saying it was an accident once something bad happens. Then took advantage of the USGA and R&A’s good graces. I’m glad this leaked. And Xander knew or should have known this was happening.

> >

> >

> > I don’t think there was any “leak” as we commonly understand that term but I agree with you that I am glad this story is out. As an exemplar of golf equipment technology’s ongoing war to create distance through something other than skill. And how quickly the manufacturers (with hungry, hyper-competitive players all over it) would blow through any limitation that wasn’t strictly enforced by the USGA. I can think of few recent stories that better demonstrated the essential role played by golf’s ruling bodies.

>

> Oh good grief. They used the rule as written. Blame the rules author if you don’t like the loophole.

 

 

I’m not “blaming” anybody or anything. And for their part, the ruling bodies are presuming honesty and good faith on the part of Callaway and Schauffele. The R&A didn’t start this. They never called Schauffele a “cheater.” Some idiot with Tour credentials did that.

 

I’m just pointing out who the quiet, competent heroes are.

 

[Holy Moses]

> @bladehunter said:

> > @"Holy Moses" said:

> > > @QMany said:

> > >

> >

> > Callaway purposefully gave Xander a sorta illegal driver. It was over the limit, but in front of buffer. If companies are going to intentionally give players drivers that are in the buffer zone, if they fail that’s 100% on them. I say get rid of the buffer. If you test at 240, it’s non-conforming.

>

> Not really. Isn’t illegal until 258.

 

That’s why I used the word “sorta.” Callaway intentionally puts out drivers in the buffer zone and Brewer said some are bound to creep past the limit. Callaway would rather risk having one of their players deemed a cheater than staying further from the limit. We are talking about inches in distance gain. Some say that’s not a big deal, but if it wasn’t Callaway wouldn’t be going right to 257. Want more distance, Callaway? Might want to focus on fixing your terrible ball first.

[I_HATE_SNOW]

> @"Holy Moses" said:

> > @bladehunter said:

> > > @"Holy Moses" said:

> > > > @QMany said:

> > > >

> > >

> > > Callaway purposefully gave Xander a sorta illegal driver. It was over the limit, but in front of buffer. If companies are going to intentionally give players drivers that are in the buffer zone, if they fail that’s 100% on them. I say get rid of the buffer. If you test at 240, it’s non-conforming.

> >

> > Not really. Isn’t illegal until 258.

>

> That’s why I used the word “sorta.” Callaway intentionally puts out drivers in the buffer zone and Brewer said some are bound to creep past the limit. Callaway would rather risk having one of their players deemed a cheater than staying further from the limit. We are talking about inches in distance gain. Some say that’s not a big deal, but if it wasn’t Callaway wouldn’t be going right to 257. Want more distance, Callaway? Might want to focus on fixing your terrible ball first.

 

Ping and TM had fails also.

[buckeyefl]

> @"Holy Moses" said:

> > @bladehunter said:

> > > @"Holy Moses" said:

> > > > @QMany said:

> > > >

> > >

> > > Callaway purposefully gave Xander a sorta illegal driver. It was over the limit, but in front of buffer. If companies are going to intentionally give players drivers that are in the buffer zone, if they fail that’s 100% on them. I say get rid of the buffer. If you test at 240, it’s non-conforming.

> >

> > Not really. Isn’t illegal until 258.

>

> That’s why I used the word “sorta.” Callaway intentionally puts out drivers in the buffer zone and Brewer said some are bound to creep past the limit. Callaway would rather risk having one of their players deemed a cheater than staying further from the limit. We are talking about inches in distance gain. Some say that’s not a big deal, but if it wasn’t Callaway wouldn’t be going right to 257. Want more distance, Callaway? Might want to focus on fixing your terrible ball first.

 

You can add every other manufacturer to your list. This isn't a Callaway issue.

[bladehunter]

> @"Holy Moses" said:

> > @bladehunter said:

> > > @"Holy Moses" said:

> > > > @QMany said:

> > > >

> > >

> > > Callaway purposefully gave Xander a sorta illegal driver. It was over the limit, but in front of buffer. If companies are going to intentionally give players drivers that are in the buffer zone, if they fail that’s 100% on them. I say get rid of the buffer. If you test at 240, it’s non-conforming.

> >

> > Not really. Isn’t illegal until 258.

>

> That’s why I used the word “sorta.” Callaway intentionally puts out drivers in the buffer zone and Brewer said some are bound to creep past the limit. Callaway would rather risk having one of their players deemed a cheater than staying further from the limit. We are talking about inches in distance gain. Some say that’s not a big deal, but if it wasn’t Callaway wouldn’t be going right to 257. Want more distance, Callaway? Might want to focus on fixing your terrible ball first.

 

It’s not just callaway. Every oem does this. A couple pages back I posted many eBay auctions for TM tour heads with CT scores all above 239 . You aren’t going to find a tour head or retail head less than 239. If you do it will be deeply discounted ( Ive only ever seen one ). 239 is not used as the limit. The actual limit in any working fashion is 257.

[15th Club]

So let’s make this point again.

 

While some people might sneer at the ruling bodies for enforcing a single microsecond “point” on a CT test, where the distance gain is a matter of inches at best, it is the Tour players and their equipment suppliers/sponsors who demand those last few CT test-points. Trying to squeeze every advantage they can out of whatever technology is available. A kind of psychological dependency on hyper- competition, down to the Nth degree of technology .

 

Thank God for the ruling bodies, bringing some sanity to game.

[pjm]

> @"15th Club" said:

> > @"Holy Moses" said:

 

> >

> > “Generally stay conforming” isn’t good enough because through use and manufacturing tolerances and different CT measuring devices a club can become non-conforming. The buffer zone wasn't made to let manufacturers put the club over the limit from the get-go. It was a safe zone. Callaway and other manufacturers are purposefully riding a millimeter from the edge and then saying it was an accident once something bad happens. Then took advantage of the USGA and R&A’s good graces. I’m glad this leaked. And Xander knew or should have known this was happening.

>

>

> I don’t think there was any “leak” as we commonly understand that term but I agree with you that I am glad this story is out. As an exemplar of golf equipment technology’s ongoing war to create distance through something other than skill. And how quickly the manufacturers (with hungry, hyper-competitive players all over it) would blow through any limitation that wasn’t strictly enforced by the USGA. I can think of few recent stories that better demonstrated the essential role played by golf’s ruling bodies.

 

I think "generally stay conforming" is good enough. Rule 4.1 states that if the performance characteristics of a conforming club change because of wear through normal use, it is still a conforming club. So if Xander's driver was initially a conforming club, then my understanding is that it does not need to stay conforming provided that it has not been deliberately or accidentally changed in any way (the words of 4.1), other than by wear through normal use. In my mind, this is similar to wedge or iron grooves that might wear and no longer be conforming, even if they were conforming when manufactured.

 

So, rather than testing a sample of drivers at each venue, couldn't players/manufacturers present a driver head for testing and have the serial number recorded by the USGA/RandA as a conforming driver before putting it into play? New drivers aren't put into play that frequently, so there would not be a huge testing burden each week (although there may be an initial rush if such an initiative was introduced and/or when new models are introduced to the Tour players). If a driver becomes "hot" through use, then so be it.

 

Such a protocol would allow players and manufacturers to proactively have their drivers verified and not be susceptible to "cheating" allegations arising from normal use.

 

Just my 2 cents.

 

[Stuart_G]

> @"15th Club" said:

>

> > @Stuart_G said:

> > > @"Holy Moses" said:

> > > > @QMany said:

> > > >

> > >

> > > Callaway purposefully gave Xander a sorta illegal driver. It was over the limit, but in front of buffer. If companies are going to intentionally give players drivers that are in the buffer zone, if they fail that’s 100% on them. I say get rid of the buffer. If you test at 240, it’s non-conforming.

> >

> > No, not even 'sorta'. All heads in the buffer zone are fully conforming. That's the whole point of the buffer zone - that heads will generally stay conforming despite the manufacturing tolerances. It's not even a little non-conforming until it gets past 257.

> >

>

>

> Okay. And let no one cry — not even sorta cry — if and when a club head tests one microsecond above the limit.

>

 

I'm perfectly fine with that - which should have been clear from my previous posts. It's really just all the crying or various degrees of sanctimonious outrage when it's 1 microsecond below the limit that I'm trying to address.

 

 

BTW - I do find it curious that they didn't mention whether Callaway's test at the open was done before or after the R+A's test. If it was before, it would indicate some level of the OEM's doing their own random or periodic testing (which I see as a good thing).

 

Also the statement found it interesting about the comment that it "probably was between 245 and 250" when put into play. Everyone's going to have different opinions on what is and what is not 'pushing the limits', but I personally don't think that range is pushing it very hard at all.

 

Now what I'd really like to get my hands on - is the research results/data on how the COR/CT creeps from usage.

 

 

 

[15th Club]

I found the statement about “between 245 and 250” weirdly interesting.

 

The statement would make sense, if they tested the head, and it was just over 247, and they called it “between 245 and 250” due to acknowledged testing tolerances. If true, that sort of tolerance would not be surprising; it would also mean that when they field tested a head right before the Open Championship and it was within a couple of microseconds from 258, they had to know the hat they were on thin ice with that head.

[Z1ggy16]

The only reason this is even a "Big deal" is b/c Xander's name is tied to it. I think I heard that what... 3 other drives failed, and that in 2018 even more than that failed? I thought it was common knowledge OEM's are putting out a few illegal drivers each year. No name dropping though, which is how it should be. It's not the player's fault, they probably don't even know what their wood's CT are.

 

They [OEMs] must be doing their own measurements prior to events... anything measuring in the upper 240's to low 250's by the R&A must surely at least be showing over the 239 "allowed" limit on the OEM's machines. Maybe I'm off base here but I'm pretty sure Callaway, Ping, TM etc all know they have illegal clubs floating around on Tour.

 

 

[Barfolomew]

.......

[Barfolomew]

> @Z1ggy16 said:

> The only reason this is even a "Big deal" is b/c Xander's name is tied to it. I think I heard that what... 3 other drives failed, and that in 2018 even more than that failed? I thought it was common knowledge OEM's are putting out a few illegal drivers each year. No name dropping though, which is how it should be._** It's not the player's fault, they probably don't even know what their wood's CT are.**_

>

> They [OEMs] must be doing their own measurements prior to events... anything measuring in the upper 240's to low 250's by the R&A must surely at least be showing over the 239 "allowed" limit on the OEM's machines. Maybe I'm off base here but I'm pretty sure Callaway, Ping, TM etc all know they have illegal clubs floating around on Tour.

 

 

Uhh its too easy to figure to say they dont know their CTSs ....."Hey Billy what are my CTs?"

 

done.... even print out the results when tested to prove you at least tried to conform in case doesn't pass and creates a $hit storm

 

 

>

>

 

 

[Soloman1]

> @Barfolomew said:

> Foul is fair

> and fair is foul

> Cheaters lurk

> and reap

 

Laughable nonsense.

 

 

[Stuart_G]

> @"15th Club" said:

> I found the statement about “between 245 and 250” weirdly interesting.

>

> The statement would make sense, if they tested the head, and it was just over 247, and they called it “between 245 and 250” due to acknowledged testing tolerances. If true, that sort of tolerance would not be surprising; it would also mean that when they field tested a head right before the Open Championship and it was within a couple of microseconds from 258, they had to know the hat they were on thin ice with that head.

 

Lots of possible reasons for the statement but I doubt it has anything to do with the testing tolerance. If they new the original value when it was put in play, they would more likely have used that exact value in the statement. It could just be the statistically significant range of all the heads coming out of the factory - and therefore a reflection of the manufacturing tolerances. Although I doubt that - but only since it's a smaller range than I'd expect. I'd guess it's more then likely the general range of CT values they get after the heads are initially screened for tour usage.

 

[Fade]

http://www.jga.or.jp/jga/html/rules/image/info3_pendulum_tec200311_en.pdf

 

A link with some background info on the test, not sure if this was posted in the thread yet.

I read it over the weekend, but I don't have time to provide an executive summary, sorry.

For those of you who are truly interested in this topic, it will make for some interesting reading.

[Stuart_G]

> @Fade said:

> http://www.jga.or.jp/jga/html/rules/image/info3_pendulum_tec200311_en.pdf

>

> A link with some background info on the test, not sure if this was posted in the thread yet.

> I read it over the weekend, but I don't have time to provide an executive summary, sorry.

> For those of you who are truly interested in this topic, it will make for some interesting reading.

 

Nice find. Very interesting reading.

[gvogel]

> @"15th Club" said:

> > @buckeyefl said:

> > > @"15th Club" said:

> > > > @buckeyefl 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.

> > > >

> > > > Why would you give them the benefit of the doubt when they were 100% the only one who could have let the info get out? That doesn't even begin to make sense. Someone dropped the ball and needs held responsible.

> > >

> > >

> > > Show us one scintilla of evidence that the R&A leaked it.

> >

> > They controlled the information. The information got out. It's really not complicated.

> >

> > Sort of like if my medical test results are made public then I know exactly who to blame since they were to confidential. The R&A messed up and deserved to be called out. Someone involved broke their own rules.

>

>

> Baloney. Even Schauffele is not making up that sort of allegation. Schauffele intimated (without basis) that maybe a door was open to the room where the testing was done. I am not even going to engage in that kind of speculation. Certainly if Schauffele knew more or had a better basis for his original but now walked-back allegation, he’d say. And you know less than Schauffele.

>

> And now, just for the fun of it, let’s also point out to anyone who has not been on a practice tee or putting green at a Tour event; the chatter is often like a high school locker room. And the gossip is like middle school girls.

>

> Oh and about your personal medical test results; the analogy might work if you included the fact that your personal results also went to eight or ten staffers in the office of your employer, whose job descriptions included keeping an eye out for health issues at your company and all competing companies.

 

Schauffele gets picked to have his driver checked at the back end of the practice area. Next thing you know, Schauffele goes to his car, or to the tour van. Hey, if I'm practicing at that point, I have a pretty good idea of what happened. And when he comes back, I might call him a cheater in a good-natured way. Just having fun. Schauffele is a little peeved that he has to put a new driver in play, and it is going to take him some time to get it tuned correctly.

 

I don't see anywhere in this scenario where the R&A is at fault. Rather, I see it as a problem that Callaway would issue drivers with a CT of over 239 to Tour players.

[Llortamaisey]

I’ve heard a lot of people say this is terrible for Callaway, however, I talked to a buddy who owns a local shop, and he said that he has had an uptick in Callaway driver sales in the last 10 days. Obviously it’s a small sample size, and he said that correlation doesn’t equal causation but that a lot of people have been talking about the Xander story when they come through. It will be interesting to see if/how this affects Callaway’s sales at point of purchase going forward.

[buckeyefl]

> @Llortamaisey said:

> I’ve heard a lot of people say this is terrible for Callaway, however, I talked to a buddy who owns a local shop, and he said that he has had an uptick in Callaway driver sales in the last 10 days. Obviously it’s a small sample size, and he said that correlation doesn’t equal causation but that a lot of people have been talking about the Xander story when they come through. It will be interesting to see if/how this affects Callaway’s sales at point of purchase going forward.

 

Golfers are suckers so it wouldn't surprise me one bit. Genius move by Callaway? Sorry Ass Bobby tried it after the fact. A day late and a dollar short.

[I_HATE_SNOW]

> @Llortamaisey said:

> I’ve heard a lot of people say this is terrible for Callaway, however, I talked to a buddy who owns a local shop, and he said that he has had an uptick in Callaway driver sales in the last 10 days. Obviously it’s a small sample size, and he said that correlation doesn’t equal causation but that a lot of people have been talking about the Xander story when they come through. It will be interesting to see if/how this affects Callaway’s sales at point of purchase going forward.

 

I've been saying this since it came out.

[BLF0901]

> @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.

 

Life is fair.

[Titletown]

> @I_HATE_SNOW said:

> > @Llortamaisey said:

> > I’ve heard a lot of people say this is terrible for Callaway, however, I talked to a buddy who owns a local shop, and he said that he has had an uptick in Callaway driver sales in the last 10 days. Obviously it’s a small sample size, and he said that correlation doesn’t equal causation but that a lot of people have been talking about the Xander story when they come through. It will be interesting to see if/how this affects Callaway’s sales at point of purchase going forward.

>

> I've been saying this since it came out.

 

these poor people. one day they will learn that the callaway drivers the tour guys play are nothing like the drivers sold at retail.

[farmer]

As I've said, I don't believe XS or Callaway knowingly had a non-conforming driver in play. If the USGA wants to know what's going on with drivers, show up at a couple of tour stops and test every driver.