Xander Schauffele's Callaway Driver Failed COR Test

[NoFancyUsername.]

Who else is playing a Callaway driver and is longer this year?......ummmm what's his name.......

[Optimus-Par]

I wonder if any of these guys have language in their contracts with the equipment sponsor to cover something like this. If I were X.S., I'd want an out. I would feel like my name got smeared and it didn't have to. I would at least renegotiate now and add verbiage that says you (equipment manufacturer) need to supply me with conforming equipment and continually test to do so; and if you don't, I can play anybody else's equipment I want.

 

[15th Club]

> @HoffTTM said:

> Why did we know initially that Xanders driver failed but not the names of the others whose drivers did equally?

 

 

Because Schauffele himself confirmed it publicly. He confirmed it publicly, he said, in order to criticize the R&A for not better adhering to its own general privacy dictates that are supposed to adhere to all such testing. Schauffele didn’t like the way that his name was being tossed around by other Tour insiders, in Tour-level gossip and/or trash talk, as a “cheater.” Which, if true and if actually serious, would be reason Number 721 that Tour players are amazingly dense about the Rules of their chosen profession. It is gratifying that even many GolfWRX commenters (some, at least) understand that this was never evidence of Schauffele “cheating,” it was never going to result in any penalty (testing was before the event and never intended to result in any penalties for any individual players) but instead was intended to supply data and general enforcement to the ongoing war between equipment manufacturers (not players) and the ruling bodies.

[sui generis]

> @new2g0lf said:

> > @Golfjack said:

> > > @dwboston said:

> > > > @jll62 said:

> > > > > @Titletown said:

> > > > > > @SAM_PGA said:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > It depends on how non-conforming it is. There was a study posted here a while ago discussing how different COR values affect distance. Basically with the margin of error in today's manufacturing even drivers that are over their COR value add very little distance. Furthermore, the tour vans test clubs for their players. I bet his was right on the edge when they initially tested it and barely failed the R&A test. There are also margin of errors in the measuring devices.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Completely agree with this... Not one manufacturer is going to let a non-conforming driver into play on a world wide platform. Additionally (I can only speak of Titlest) has a routine schedule of testing every single driver they have on play to ensure they do not exceed the illegal line. If a Titleist driver is on the line, they know there is a very good chance that the next time it is tested it could be illegal... A back-up, if it doesn't already exist, will go into production.

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > I don't mean to be a smart-a$$ here because I don't know a **** thing about COR, but you say no manufacturer would let a non-conforming driver into play, but Callaway did. I don't blame Xander one bit, but someone has to be at fault. There had to be someone on the tour truck that knew this was non-conforming. Or am I missing something?

> > > >

> > > > I'm no fan of Callaway, but this is all much ado about nothing. When Xander put the head into play, I would bet a lot of money that it was conforming (but very close to the limit after accounting for tolerance). No company is going to intentionally put a non-conforming driver into use these days. His head almost certainly became non-conforming after use.

> > > >

> > > > I do agree with Xander that only testing a 30 club sample isn't equitable. Either test them all, or don't test any.

> > >

> > > There's a reason the number 30 is chosen. It's called the Central Limit Theorem in statistics. To boil it down, if the sample is sufficiently large, the distribution of results tends to be normally distributed, and sufficiently large has been found to be a sample of at least 30. Doing a sample of 30 will give you comparable results to testing the entire population, at less time and cost.

> >

> > Thing is that is fine for statistical analysis, but not fine for actually doing things. Imagine at immigration you only test 30 out of a bunch of people instead of every single person. Doesn't make sense does it? They could clearly test and label the drivers before the tournament begins. It shouldn't be a problem to implement this if they are serious about fairness. Drug testing is different, although again the best test would be to test everybody before each tournament.

>

> The other side of this is, the 30 are random so therefore each pro has no idea if their club will be tested but the sample size is large enough given the number of competitors that they wouldn't want to risk knowingly using an illegal driver. I wouldn't risk any significant penalty or negative press for a 1 in 5 chance of getting caught.

 

Or, test after the event has finished. Fail = player's prize money goes to every one below him or her.

[QMany]

> @K13 said:

> > @QMany said:

> > Wow! Not a good look.

>

> For Callaway, not Xander right?

>

Correct, that is what I meant.

[lopey986]

> @"sui generis" said:

> > @new2g0lf said:

> > > @Golfjack said:

> > > > @dwboston said:

> > > > > @jll62 said:

> > > > > > @Titletown said:

> > > > > > > @SAM_PGA said:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > It depends on how non-conforming it is. There was a study posted here a while ago discussing how different COR values affect distance. Basically with the margin of error in today's manufacturing even drivers that are over their COR value add very little distance. Furthermore, the tour vans test clubs for their players. I bet his was right on the edge when they initially tested it and barely failed the R&A test. There are also margin of errors in the measuring devices.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Completely agree with this... Not one manufacturer is going to let a non-conforming driver into play on a world wide platform. Additionally (I can only speak of Titlest) has a routine schedule of testing every single driver they have on play to ensure they do not exceed the illegal line. If a Titleist driver is on the line, they know there is a very good chance that the next time it is tested it could be illegal... A back-up, if it doesn't already exist, will go into production.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I don't mean to be a smart-a$$ here because I don't know a **** thing about COR, but you say no manufacturer would let a non-conforming driver into play, but Callaway did. I don't blame Xander one bit, but someone has to be at fault. There had to be someone on the tour truck that knew this was non-conforming. Or am I missing something?

> > > > >

> > > > > I'm no fan of Callaway, but this is all much ado about nothing. When Xander put the head into play, I would bet a lot of money that it was conforming (but very close to the limit after accounting for tolerance). No company is going to intentionally put a non-conforming driver into use these days. His head almost certainly became non-conforming after use.

> > > > >

> > > > > I do agree with Xander that only testing a 30 club sample isn't equitable. Either test them all, or don't test any.

> > > >

> > > > There's a reason the number 30 is chosen. It's called the Central Limit Theorem in statistics. To boil it down, if the sample is sufficiently large, the distribution of results tends to be normally distributed, and sufficiently large has been found to be a sample of at least 30. Doing a sample of 30 will give you comparable results to testing the entire population, at less time and cost.

> > >

> > > Thing is that is fine for statistical analysis, but not fine for actually doing things. Imagine at immigration you only test 30 out of a bunch of people instead of every single person. Doesn't make sense does it? They could clearly test and label the drivers before the tournament begins. It shouldn't be a problem to implement this if they are serious about fairness. Drug testing is different, although again the best test would be to test everybody before each tournament.

> >

> > The other side of this is, the 30 are random so therefore each pro has no idea if their club will be tested but the sample size is large enough given the number of competitors that they wouldn't want to risk knowingly using an illegal driver. I wouldn't risk any significant penalty or negative press for a 1 in 5 chance of getting caught.

>

> Or, test after the event has finished. Fail = player's prize money goes to every one below him or her.

 

That would be insane, these guys don't build their equipment. If anything the equipment company should be levied a fine but penalizing players for equipment issues is downright silly.

[15th Club]

> @"sui generis" said:

> > @new2g0lf said:

> > > @Golfjack said:

> > > > @dwboston said:

> > > > > @jll62 said:

> > > > > > @Titletown said:

> > > > > > > @SAM_PGA said:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > It depends on how non-conforming it is. There was a study posted here a while ago discussing how different COR values affect distance. Basically with the margin of error in today's manufacturing even drivers that are over their COR value add very little distance. Furthermore, the tour vans test clubs for their players. I bet his was right on the edge when they initially tested it and barely failed the R&A test. There are also margin of errors in the measuring devices.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Completely agree with this... Not one manufacturer is going to let a non-conforming driver into play on a world wide platform. Additionally (I can only speak of Titlest) has a routine schedule of testing every single driver they have on play to ensure they do not exceed the illegal line. If a Titleist driver is on the line, they know there is a very good chance that the next time it is tested it could be illegal... A back-up, if it doesn't already exist, will go into production.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I don't mean to be a smart-a$$ here because I don't know a **** thing about COR, but you say no manufacturer would let a non-conforming driver into play, but Callaway did. I don't blame Xander one bit, but someone has to be at fault. There had to be someone on the tour truck that knew this was non-conforming. Or am I missing something?

> > > > >

> > > > > I'm no fan of Callaway, but this is all much ado about nothing. When Xander put the head into play, I would bet a lot of money that it was conforming (but very close to the limit after accounting for tolerance). No company is going to intentionally put a non-conforming driver into use these days. His head almost certainly became non-conforming after use.

> > > > >

> > > > > I do agree with Xander that only testing a 30 club sample isn't equitable. Either test them all, or don't test any.

> > > >

> > > > There's a reason the number 30 is chosen. It's called the Central Limit Theorem in statistics. To boil it down, if the sample is sufficiently large, the distribution of results tends to be normally distributed, and sufficiently large has been found to be a sample of at least 30. Doing a sample of 30 will give you comparable results to testing the entire population, at less time and cost.

> > >

> > > Thing is that is fine for statistical analysis, but not fine for actually doing things. Imagine at immigration you only test 30 out of a bunch of people instead of every single person. Doesn't make sense does it? They could clearly test and label the drivers before the tournament begins. It shouldn't be a problem to implement this if they are serious about fairness. Drug testing is different, although again the best test would be to test everybody before each tournament.

> >

> > The other side of this is, the 30 are random so therefore each pro has no idea if their club will be tested but the sample size is large enough given the number of competitors that they wouldn't want to risk knowingly using an illegal driver. I wouldn't risk any significant penalty or negative press for a 1 in 5 chance of getting caught.

>

> Or, test after the event has finished. Fail = player's prize money goes to every one below him or her.

 

 

That isn’t what the ruling bodies want. They don’t want a technical rule to affect an outcome after play and scoring is concluded. They want the best score to prevail, and for all technical aspects to be as few as possible and for all of the technical issues to be resolved before play.

 

[golfer07840]

> @buckeyefl said:

> > @golfgirlrobin said:

> > > @bladehunter said:

> > > > @golfgirlrobin said:

> > > > So you have a simple equipment issue that has happened to players before you, and will happen again, and instead of letting the story die on Tuesday or Wednesday, you drag it out for the entire tournament. No one thinks you cheated, people are capable of understanding the concept of manufacturing tolerances, people understand that the pro’s equipment is intended to be as close to the line as possible without going over, and there is no actual penalty of any kind, and yet XS has reduced himself to being the guy who points at others and says “well, they did it, too”.

> > > >

> > > > He certainly didn’t complain about the testing process until he was caught and now it’s suddenly not good enough? Now he’s worried about others having an advantage? The whole argument is completely disingenuous.

> > > >

> > > > I think most of his problem is that he’s getting razzed by the other players and he can’t take it.

> > >

> > > Probably true. But on the flip side. Why should he need to take it ? Speaking out is likely The only way to shut them up . Afterall. The system in place did fail him , right ? It’s not as if he has any control over it.

> >

> > The problem with the system is that it’s designed to keep secrets, and people only keep secrets until it’s more interesting not to. The answer is transparency, but the tour holds onto every bit of information as tightly as they can. Put out a list every week and everyone eventually ends up on it, hide it and it becomes a story. Same is true of disciplinary actions, drug test results, etc.

> >

> > Don’t want to take the razzing? If it’s going to bother you that much, check your driver periodically. You know the random tests are out there; be a little proactive, take some responsibility. You played a non conforming club, it affected the field, if only by a little, there ought to be some consequences. If you don’t want to take on that added responsibility, then stand up and take a few smart a** comments and don’t be a whinger.

> >

> >

> >

> >

>

> Drug testing, yes.

> Clubs that your sponsor tests and are confirming as far as you know, no. That's out if the players hands and they shouldn't have to do their own testing. Besides that's not the issue at hand. His name should not be out there and that's what he's rightfully upset about.

>

> Also it didn't effect the field at all. It's zero advantage. Also he gained the exact opposite of an advantage thanks to someone's lack of professionalism and having to out a new driver in the bag.

>

> Now imagine you are playing in a local tournament and they decide to do a groove check. Well it turns out you had a groove on one club that was non-conforming so we notify everyone, you lose the title and forever deemed a cheat. Should you have to check your own grooves to protect the field after the manufacturer said they were conforming?

>

> The only person hurt in this is the player. The company screwed up which is why this has no reason to be out in the public. Drug tests where someone knowingly decides to use banned substances, release the name and fire away.

 

You make way too much sense to be posting on WRX

[pendodave]

> @"15th Club" said:

> > @HoffTTM said:

> > Why did we know initially that Xanders driver failed but not the names of the others whose drivers did equally?

>

>

> Because Schauffele himself confirmed it publicly. He confirmed it publicly, he said, in order to criticize the R&A for not better adhering to its own general privacy dictates that are supposed to adhere to all such testing. Schauffele didn’t like the way that his name was being tossed around by other Tour insiders, in Tour-level gossip and/or trash talk, as a “cheater.” Which, if true and if actually serious, would be reason Number 721 that Tour players are amazingly dense about the Rules of their chosen profession. It is gratifying that even many GolfWRX commenters (some, at least) understand that this was never evidence of Schauffele “cheating,” it was never going to result in any penalty (testing was before the event and never intended to result in any penalties for any individual players) but instead was intended to supply data and general enforcement to the ongoing war between equipment manufacturers (not players) and the ruling bodies.

 

How does Xander know that it was someone from the R&A that leaked it? Unless he has proof, maybe he should adhere to his own advice on this... could have been chit chat in the callaway truck etc etc etc.

tbh, the only reason most people know about this is that Xander chirped up about it. And not only that, instead of doing the sensible damage limitation thing of acknowledging the error and moving on, decided to keep digging his hole about how unfair the world is. The PGAtour blows so much smoke up these guys nether regions, it seems like they really don't know how to behave in public.

[sui generis]

> @"15th Club" said:

> > @"sui generis" said:

> > > @new2g0lf said:

> > > > @Golfjack said:

> > > > > @dwboston said:

> > > > > > @jll62 said:

> > > > > > > @Titletown said:

> > > > > > > > @SAM_PGA said:

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > It depends on how non-conforming it is. There was a study posted here a while ago discussing how different COR values affect distance. Basically with the margin of error in today's manufacturing even drivers that are over their COR value add very little distance. Furthermore, the tour vans test clubs for their players. I bet his was right on the edge when they initially tested it and barely failed the R&A test. There are also margin of errors in the measuring devices.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Completely agree with this... Not one manufacturer is going to let a non-conforming driver into play on a world wide platform. Additionally (I can only speak of Titlest) has a routine schedule of testing every single driver they have on play to ensure they do not exceed the illegal line. If a Titleist driver is on the line, they know there is a very good chance that the next time it is tested it could be illegal... A back-up, if it doesn't already exist, will go into production.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > I don't mean to be a smart-a$$ here because I don't know a **** thing about COR, but you say no manufacturer would let a non-conforming driver into play, but Callaway did. I don't blame Xander one bit, but someone has to be at fault. There had to be someone on the tour truck that knew this was non-conforming. Or am I missing something?

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I'm no fan of Callaway, but this is all much ado about nothing. When Xander put the head into play, I would bet a lot of money that it was conforming (but very close to the limit after accounting for tolerance). No company is going to intentionally put a non-conforming driver into use these days. His head almost certainly became non-conforming after use.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I do agree with Xander that only testing a 30 club sample isn't equitable. Either test them all, or don't test any.

> > > > >

> > > > > There's a reason the number 30 is chosen. It's called the Central Limit Theorem in statistics. To boil it down, if the sample is sufficiently large, the distribution of results tends to be normally distributed, and sufficiently large has been found to be a sample of at least 30. Doing a sample of 30 will give you comparable results to testing the entire population, at less time and cost.

> > > >

> > > > Thing is that is fine for statistical analysis, but not fine for actually doing things. Imagine at immigration you only test 30 out of a bunch of people instead of every single person. Doesn't make sense does it? They could clearly test and label the drivers before the tournament begins. It shouldn't be a problem to implement this if they are serious about fairness. Drug testing is different, although again the best test would be to test everybody before each tournament.

> > >

> > > The other side of this is, the 30 are random so therefore each pro has no idea if their club will be tested but the sample size is large enough given the number of competitors that they wouldn't want to risk knowingly using an illegal driver. I wouldn't risk any significant penalty or negative press for a 1 in 5 chance of getting caught.

> >

> > Or, test after the event has finished. Fail = player's prize money goes to every one below him or her.

>

>

> That isn’t what the ruling bodies want. They don’t want a technical rule to affect an outcome after play and scoring is concluded. They want the best score to prevail, and for all technical aspects to be as few as possible and for all of the technical issues to be resolved before play.

>

 

Well, what is it the RB's really want? I suspect they want players to use conforming golf clubs. Pre-event testing allows the players and equipment to roll the dice. 30 out of 150 may be viewed as worth the risk . . . what risk? None really, right? "Sorry, kid, your club failed." Kid says, "Who cares, the tour van has a dozen more."

[15th Club]

> @pendodave said:

> > @"15th Club" said:

> > > @HoffTTM said:

> > > Why did we know initially that Xanders driver failed but not the names of the others whose drivers did equally?

> >

> >

> > Because Schauffele himself confirmed it publicly. He confirmed it publicly, he said, in order to criticize the R&A for not better adhering to its own general privacy dictates that are supposed to adhere to all such testing. Schauffele didn’t like the way that his name was being tossed around by other Tour insiders, in Tour-level gossip and/or trash talk, as a “cheater.” Which, if true and if actually serious, would be reason Number 721 that Tour players are amazingly dense about the Rules of their chosen profession. It is gratifying that even many GolfWRX commenters (some, at least) understand that this was never evidence of Schauffele “cheating,” it was never going to result in any penalty (testing was before the event and never intended to result in any penalties for any individual players) but instead was intended to supply data and general enforcement to the ongoing war between equipment manufacturers (not players) and the ruling bodies.

>

> How does Xander know that it was someone from the R&A that leaked it? Unless he has proof, maybe he should adhere to his own advice on this... could have been chit chat in the callaway truck etc etc etc.

> tbh, the only reason most people know about this is that Xander chirped up about it. And not only that, instead of doing the sensible damage limitation thing of acknowledging the error and moving on, decided to keep digging his hole about how unfair the world is. The PGAtour blows so much smoke up these guys nether regions, it seems like they really don't know how to behave in public.

 

 

So I wouldn’t have used your choice of words, but I essentially said the same thing earlier in this thread. The discussion BEGINS with the understanding that the R&A correctly enforced the equipment rules and testing protocols, and the only question is about how the information became known to others. And the more I think about it, the more unlikely it seems to me that the R&A would have leaked Schauffele’s name alone out of any malintent. And so the discussion rightly turns to how and why the Schauffele gossip among Tour insiders began.

 

[15th Club]

> @"sui generis" said:

> > @"15th Club" said:

> > > @"sui generis" said:

> > > > @new2g0lf said:

> > > > > @Golfjack said:

> > > > > > @dwboston said:

> > > > > > > @jll62 said:

> > > > > > > > @Titletown said:

> > > > > > > > > @SAM_PGA said:

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > It depends on how non-conforming it is. There was a study posted here a while ago discussing how different COR values affect distance. Basically with the margin of error in today's manufacturing even drivers that are over their COR value add very little distance. Furthermore, the tour vans test clubs for their players. I bet his was right on the edge when they initially tested it and barely failed the R&A test. There are also margin of errors in the measuring devices.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Completely agree with this... Not one manufacturer is going to let a non-conforming driver into play on a world wide platform. Additionally (I can only speak of Titlest) has a routine schedule of testing every single driver they have on play to ensure they do not exceed the illegal line. If a Titleist driver is on the line, they know there is a very good chance that the next time it is tested it could be illegal... A back-up, if it doesn't already exist, will go into production.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > I don't mean to be a smart-a$$ here because I don't know a **** thing about COR, but you say no manufacturer would let a non-conforming driver into play, but Callaway did. I don't blame Xander one bit, but someone has to be at fault. There had to be someone on the tour truck that knew this was non-conforming. Or am I missing something?

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > I'm no fan of Callaway, but this is all much ado about nothing. When Xander put the head into play, I would bet a lot of money that it was conforming (but very close to the limit after accounting for tolerance). No company is going to intentionally put a non-conforming driver into use these days. His head almost certainly became non-conforming after use.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > I do agree with Xander that only testing a 30 club sample isn't equitable. Either test them all, or don't test any.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > There's a reason the number 30 is chosen. It's called the Central Limit Theorem in statistics. To boil it down, if the sample is sufficiently large, the distribution of results tends to be normally distributed, and sufficiently large has been found to be a sample of at least 30. Doing a sample of 30 will give you comparable results to testing the entire population, at less time and cost.

> > > > >

> > > > > Thing is that is fine for statistical analysis, but not fine for actually doing things. Imagine at immigration you only test 30 out of a bunch of people instead of every single person. Doesn't make sense does it? They could clearly test and label the drivers before the tournament begins. It shouldn't be a problem to implement this if they are serious about fairness. Drug testing is different, although again the best test would be to test everybody before each tournament.

> > > >

> > > > The other side of this is, the 30 are random so therefore each pro has no idea if their club will be tested but the sample size is large enough given the number of competitors that they wouldn't want to risk knowingly using an illegal driver. I wouldn't risk any significant penalty or negative press for a 1 in 5 chance of getting caught.

> > >

> > > Or, test after the event has finished. Fail = player's prize money goes to every one below him or her.

> >

> >

> > That isn’t what the ruling bodies want. They don’t want a technical rule to affect an outcome after play and scoring is concluded. They want the best score to prevail, and for all technical aspects to be as few as possible and for all of the technical issues to be resolved before play.

> >

>

> Well, what is it the RB's really want? I suspect they want players to use conforming golf clubs. Pre-event testing allows the players and equipment to roll the dice. 30 out of 150 may be viewed as worth the risk . . . what risk? None really, right? "Sorry, kid, your club failed." Kid says, "Who cares, the tour van has a dozen more."

 

 

If professional golfers and their manufacturer-sponsors want to play cops-and-robbers, I suppose the USGA can play along. If that becomes the case, I think that the professional tours and the equipment should all pay the USGA and the R&A a billion dollars a year to act as their rule-enforcers for them.

 

But the game of golf as I know it is a game of honor for gentlemen.

[bladehunter]

That logic is like artificially low speed limits. The lie is they reduce traffic accidents. The truth is they increase revenue.

 

DQ after the fact wouldn’t stop illegals drivers from popping up , would just cause a media shat storm and an implosion of the tours.

 

Beside that fact is that if testing is no longer available before hand then how would one know for sure ? By that I mean testing by the USga.

( r and a etc). Since it’s obvious that the testing itself has variances. Unless we are accusing callaway of falsifying gets results now too ?

[J13]

> @OldTomMorris said:

> > @J13 said:

> > > @phil75070 said:

> > > If rumors are true that TM and PXG also had failures I don't know why this makes Callaway look any worse in comparison. What we don't know is, of the 30 tested, how many were Callaway? If this one failure is one of 10 or more (given the # of guys playing Callaway) , for example, it is a one off. If it is 1 of 1 it is a totally different story. How many guys out there are playing PXG drivers? Their failure(s) could be of more significance. With almost 15% failures in the 30 tested, either every driver should have been tested or every driver from each manufacturer who had one fail should have been subject to the test.

> > >

> > > I firmly believe that with the number of balls these guys hit at the swing speeds they have that a driver face could get "springier" over time and use.

> >

> > Other OEM's had failures and this happens on tour. It's not new and the people that say it makes Callaway look bad are just misinformed on the actual subject. The tour doesn't talk about it and the only reason we know of this particular situation is because Xander brought it out as he didn't like how the R&A conducted the test.

>

> I agree, I think its being overblown but it still makes Callaway look bad to some degree as they've supplied one of their top players with non-conforming equipment. Everyone, players and manufacturers, know that there is a chance that they could be asked to supply their equipment for an R&A test so it was avoidable.

>

> The leaking of the name is a different matter altogether.

 

That's the thing, Callaway and the other OEMs that failed didn't supply guys with non-conforming clubs. The clubs are legal when supplied then migrate over time.

[15th Club]

> @bladehunter said:

> That logic is like artificially low speed limits. The lie is they reduce traffic accidents. The truth is they increase revenue.

>

> DQ after the fact wouldn’t stop illegals drivers from popping up , would just cause a media shat storm and an implosion of the tours.

>

> Beside that fact is that if testing is no longer available before hand then how would one know for sure ? By that I mean testing by the USga.

> ( r and a etc). Since it’s obvious that the testing itself has variances. Unless we are accusing callaway of falsifying gets results now too ?

 

 

I’m getting tired of making the same obvious points repeatedly. The reason for testing select random samples has already been explained by others with technical and statistical training.

 

The reason for testing pre-tournament is to alert players with non-conforming gear before they put it into play, if the testing so indicates.

 

The reason for privacy in the results is to protect the reputations of players who might have innocently believed that their driver was conforming.

 

And as many others have observed, this whole kerfuffle is mostly an embarrassment to the Callaway tour equipment staff.

 

[bladehunter]

> @"15th Club" said:

> > @bladehunter said:

> > That logic is like artificially low speed limits. The lie is they reduce traffic accidents. The truth is they increase revenue.

> >

> > DQ after the fact wouldn’t stop illegals drivers from popping up , would just cause a media shat storm and an implosion of the tours.

> >

> > Beside that fact is that if testing is no longer available before hand then how would one know for sure ? By that I mean testing by the USga.

> > ( r and a etc). Since it’s obvious that the testing itself has variances. Unless we are accusing callaway of falsifying gets results now too ?

>

>

> I’m getting tired of making the same obvious points repeatedly. The reason for testing select random samples has already been explained by others with technical and statistical training.

>

> The reason for testing pre-tournament is to alert players with non-conforming gear before they put it into play, if the testing so indicates.

>

> The reason for privacy in the results is to protect the reputations of players who might have innocently believed that their driver was conforming.

>

> And as many others have observed, this whole kerfuffle is mostly an embarrassment to the Callaway tour equipment staff.

>

 

Wasn’t replying to your post. I agree with you. I was speaking to the logic of testing after the event.

[J13]

> @"15th Club" said:

> > @bladehunter said:

> > That logic is like artificially low speed limits. The lie is they reduce traffic accidents. The truth is they increase revenue.

> >

> > DQ after the fact wouldn’t stop illegals drivers from popping up , would just cause a media shat storm and an implosion of the tours.

> >

> > Beside that fact is that if testing is no longer available before hand then how would one know for sure ? By that I mean testing by the USga.

> > ( r and a etc). Since it’s obvious that the testing itself has variances. Unless we are accusing callaway of falsifying gets results now too ?

>

>

> I’m getting tired of making the same obvious points repeatedly. The reason for testing select random samples has already been explained by others with technical and statistical training.

>

> The reason for testing pre-tournament is to alert players with non-conforming gear before they put it into play, if the testing so indicates.

>

> The reason for privacy in the results is to protect the reputations of players who might have innocently believed that their driver was conforming.

>

> And as many others have observed, this whole kerfuffle is mostly an embarrassment to the Callaway tour equipment staff.

>

 

How is the embarrassment on Callaway tour staff if they supplied a legal and conforming driver to Xander? ALL drivers migrate over time and it's impossible to run COR testing at tourney sites and for every player that has a driver in play. Migrating driver heads have been a thing on tour for decades and very common place.

[sui generis]

> @"15th Club" said:

> > @"sui generis" said:

> > > @"15th Club" said:

> > > > @"sui generis" said:

> > > > > @new2g0lf said:

> > > > > > @Golfjack said:

> > > > > > > @dwboston said:

> > > > > > > > @jll62 said:

> > > > > > > > > @Titletown said:

> > > > > > > > > > @SAM_PGA said:

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > It depends on how non-conforming it is. There was a study posted here a while ago discussing how different COR values affect distance. Basically with the margin of error in today's manufacturing even drivers that are over their COR value add very little distance. Furthermore, the tour vans test clubs for their players. I bet his was right on the edge when they initially tested it and barely failed the R&A test. There are also margin of errors in the measuring devices.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Completely agree with this... Not one manufacturer is going to let a non-conforming driver into play on a world wide platform. Additionally (I can only speak of Titlest) has a routine schedule of testing every single driver they have on play to ensure they do not exceed the illegal line. If a Titleist driver is on the line, they know there is a very good chance that the next time it is tested it could be illegal... A back-up, if it doesn't already exist, will go into production.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > I don't mean to be a smart-a$$ here because I don't know a **** thing about COR, but you say no manufacturer would let a non-conforming driver into play, but Callaway did. I don't blame Xander one bit, but someone has to be at fault. There had to be someone on the tour truck that knew this was non-conforming. Or am I missing something?

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > I'm no fan of Callaway, but this is all much ado about nothing. When Xander put the head into play, I would bet a lot of money that it was conforming (but very close to the limit after accounting for tolerance). No company is going to intentionally put a non-conforming driver into use these days. His head almost certainly became non-conforming after use.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > I do agree with Xander that only testing a 30 club sample isn't equitable. Either test them all, or don't test any.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > There's a reason the number 30 is chosen. It's called the Central Limit Theorem in statistics. To boil it down, if the sample is sufficiently large, the distribution of results tends to be normally distributed, and sufficiently large has been found to be a sample of at least 30. Doing a sample of 30 will give you comparable results to testing the entire population, at less time and cost.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Thing is that is fine for statistical analysis, but not fine for actually doing things. Imagine at immigration you only test 30 out of a bunch of people instead of every single person. Doesn't make sense does it? They could clearly test and label the drivers before the tournament begins. It shouldn't be a problem to implement this if they are serious about fairness. Drug testing is different, although again the best test would be to test everybody before each tournament.

> > > > >

> > > > > The other side of this is, the 30 are random so therefore each pro has no idea if their club will be tested but the sample size is large enough given the number of competitors that they wouldn't want to risk knowingly using an illegal driver. I wouldn't risk any significant penalty or negative press for a 1 in 5 chance of getting caught.

> > > >

> > > > Or, test after the event has finished. Fail = player's prize money goes to every one below him or her.

> > >

> > >

> > > That isn’t what the ruling bodies want. They don’t want a technical rule to affect an outcome after play and scoring is concluded. They want the best score to prevail, and for all technical aspects to be as few as possible and for all of the technical issues to be resolved before play.

> > >

> >

> > Well, what is it the RB's really want? I suspect they want players to use conforming golf clubs. Pre-event testing allows the players and equipment to roll the dice. 30 out of 150 may be viewed as worth the risk . . . what risk? None really, right? "Sorry, kid, your club failed." Kid says, "Who cares, the tour van has a dozen more."

>

>

> If professional golfers and their manufacturer-sponsors want to play cops-and-robbers, I suppose the USGA can play along. If that becomes the case, I think that the professional tours and the equipment should all pay the USGA and the R&A a billion dollars a year to act as their rule-enforcers for them.

>

> But the game of golf as I know it is a game of honor for gentlemen.

 

Pre-event testing, especially with secret results, creates little incentive for the OEM to supply their players with conforming clubs. Club fails? No sweat, OEM van has a dozen more.

 

As you well know, the Rules charge the player with abiding by them. The Rules say nothing to the OEMs.

[15th Club]

Let’s add that this is an embarrassment to any player or other Tour insider who, with so much as a whiff of seriousness, indicated that Schauffele was a “cheater.” (And blame on Schauffele if he freaked out over some joking.)

 

But the far larger issue is this. With current equipment designs, and manufacturers openly challenging the limits of equipment technology rules, this sort of thing can and probably will repeat itself. Which elevates the equipment technology above the playing of the game itself.

 

[OldTomMorris]

> @J13 said:

> > @OldTomMorris said:

> > > @J13 said:

> > > > @phil75070 said:

> > > > If rumors are true that TM and PXG also had failures I don't know why this makes Callaway look any worse in comparison. What we don't know is, of the 30 tested, how many were Callaway? If this one failure is one of 10 or more (given the # of guys playing Callaway) , for example, it is a one off. If it is 1 of 1 it is a totally different story. How many guys out there are playing PXG drivers? Their failure(s) could be of more significance. With almost 15% failures in the 30 tested, either every driver should have been tested or every driver from each manufacturer who had one fail should have been subject to the test.

> > > >

> > > > I firmly believe that with the number of balls these guys hit at the swing speeds they have that a driver face could get "springier" over time and use.

> > >

> > > Other OEM's had failures and this happens on tour. It's not new and the people that say it makes Callaway look bad are just misinformed on the actual subject. The tour doesn't talk about it and the only reason we know of this particular situation is because Xander brought it out as he didn't like how the R&A conducted the test.

> >

> > I agree, I think its being overblown but it still makes Callaway look bad to some degree as they've supplied one of their top players with non-conforming equipment. Everyone, players and manufacturers, know that there is a chance that they could be asked to supply their equipment for an R&A test so it was avoidable.

> >

> > The leaking of the name is a different matter altogether.

>

> That's the thing, Callaway and the other OEMs that failed didn't supply guys with non-conforming clubs. The clubs are legal when supplied then migrate over time.

 

OK if that is the case why isn't Callaway re-testing his driver on a semi-regular basis?

[new2g0lf]

> @"sui generis" said:

> > @"15th Club" said:

> > > @"sui generis" said:

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

> > > > > @"sui generis" said:

> > > > > > @new2g0lf said:

> > > > > > > @Golfjack said:

> > > > > > > > @dwboston said:

> > > > > > > > > @jll62 said:

> > > > > > > > > > @Titletown said:

> > > > > > > > > > > @SAM_PGA said:

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > It depends on how non-conforming it is. There was a study posted here a while ago discussing how different COR values affect distance. Basically with the margin of error in today's manufacturing even drivers that are over their COR value add very little distance. Furthermore, the tour vans test clubs for their players. I bet his was right on the edge when they initially tested it and barely failed the R&A test. There are also margin of errors in the measuring devices.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Completely agree with this... Not one manufacturer is going to let a non-conforming driver into play on a world wide platform. Additionally (I can only speak of Titlest) has a routine schedule of testing every single driver they have on play to ensure they do not exceed the illegal line. If a Titleist driver is on the line, they know there is a very good chance that the next time it is tested it could be illegal... A back-up, if it doesn't already exist, will go into production.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > I don't mean to be a smart-a$$ here because I don't know a **** thing about COR, but you say no manufacturer would let a non-conforming driver into play, but Callaway did. I don't blame Xander one bit, but someone has to be at fault. There had to be someone on the tour truck that knew this was non-conforming. Or am I missing something?

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > I'm no fan of Callaway, but this is all much ado about nothing. When Xander put the head into play, I would bet a lot of money that it was conforming (but very close to the limit after accounting for tolerance). No company is going to intentionally put a non-conforming driver into use these days. His head almost certainly became non-conforming after use.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > I do agree with Xander that only testing a 30 club sample isn't equitable. Either test them all, or don't test any.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > There's a reason the number 30 is chosen. It's called the Central Limit Theorem in statistics. To boil it down, if the sample is sufficiently large, the distribution of results tends to be normally distributed, and sufficiently large has been found to be a sample of at least 30. Doing a sample of 30 will give you comparable results to testing the entire population, at less time and cost.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Thing is that is fine for statistical analysis, but not fine for actually doing things. Imagine at immigration you only test 30 out of a bunch of people instead of every single person. Doesn't make sense does it? They could clearly test and label the drivers before the tournament begins. It shouldn't be a problem to implement this if they are serious about fairness. Drug testing is different, although again the best test would be to test everybody before each tournament.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > The other side of this is, the 30 are random so therefore each pro has no idea if their club will be tested but the sample size is large enough given the number of competitors that they wouldn't want to risk knowingly using an illegal driver. I wouldn't risk any significant penalty or negative press for a 1 in 5 chance of getting caught.

> > > > >

> > > > > Or, test after the event has finished. Fail = player's prize money goes to every one below him or her.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > That isn’t what the ruling bodies want. They don’t want a technical rule to affect an outcome after play and scoring is concluded. They want the best score to prevail, and for all technical aspects to be as few as possible and for all of the technical issues to be resolved before play.

> > > >

> > >

> > > Well, what is it the RB's really want? I suspect they want players to use conforming golf clubs. Pre-event testing allows the players and equipment to roll the dice. 30 out of 150 may be viewed as worth the risk . . . what risk? None really, right? "Sorry, kid, your club failed." Kid says, "Who cares, the tour van has a dozen more."

> >

> >

> > If professional golfers and their manufacturer-sponsors want to play cops-and-robbers, I suppose the USGA can play along. If that becomes the case, I think that the professional tours and the equipment should all pay the USGA and the R&A a billion dollars a year to act as their rule-enforcers for them.

> >

> > But the game of golf as I know it is a game of honor for gentlemen.

>

> Pre-event testing, especially with secret results, creates little incentive for the OEM to supply their players with conforming clubs. Club fails? No sweat, OEM van has a dozen more.

>

> As you well know, the Rules charge the player with abiding by them. The Rules say nothing to the OEMs.

 

Based on all the whining Xander did, the dozen that the OEM van had didn't meet his standards and he claims impacted his performance.

[Titletown]

From everything I've heard and read the actual failing of the test is very minor. The most likely scenario is that it failed because of use, if you hit X amount of drives out of the center of the face it becomes hotter and that can cause it to fail one of these tests. The biggest issue has been how the information got leaked and I don't think anyone has any new, solid information on that.

[sui generis]

> @"15th Club" said:

> Let’s add that this is an embarrassment to any player or other Tour insider who, with so much as a whiff of seriousness, indicated that Schauffele was a “cheater.” (And blame on Schauffele if he freaked out over some joking.)

>

> But the far larger issue is this. With current equipment designs, and manufacturers openly challenging the limits of equipment technology rules, this sort of thing can and probably will repeat itself. Which elevates the equipment technology above the playing of the game itself.

>

 

Players really haven't any way to test some of the equipment specs they're required to adhere to. These players are paid handsomely to play OEM stuff and wear their caps, etc. Whose responsibility should it be to ensure that the esoteric specs of a club are conforming?

[sdsteb]

How do we know Callaway supplied a conforming driver to Xander to begin with?

[15th Club]

> @sdsteb said:

> How do we know Callaway supplied a conforming driver to Xander to begin with?

 

 

I’ll say this; now that the story has broken per Schauffele himself, I am like everybody else and want to know more. Starting with Schauffele himself. Including what he understood, what Callaway told him, what the R&A told him, what testing results he was given, and what the R&A and Callaway have to say in response now that Schauffele seems to have waived any remaining privacy.

[15th Club]

By the way; do you all know why the ruling bodies went to a Characteristic Time measurement instead of Coefficient of Restitution?

 

It’s because CoR testing was immensely complicated and laboratory-based, only. And a very clever young engineer came up with a beautifully simple pendulum device that was field-transportable and while it supplied a different physical measurement, it replicated the CoR measurement.

 

[stanger37]

How do the tests work and how long do they take?

 

As someone who goes to the bowling national tournament ever year, USBC, before every squad that goes out, I believe there are 5-6 squads a day, probably 200 bowlers at a time, EACH BALL before EACH SQUAD is tested. It takes about 30sec a ball. Each bowler can have 4 balls, most only bring 2, but could test 800 balls a squad. Just curious as to why they couldn't test 156 drivers as soon as the player gets there and gets situated? No player walks on to the course and immediately starts hitting driver bombs on the practice range so even if it was a long test, I imagine there is ample time to test.

 

But I am completely ignorant to the tests so I have no idea.

[BreakingPar]

> @"sui generis" said:

 

> Pre-event testing, especially with secret results, creates little incentive for the OEM to supply their players with >conforming clubs. Club fails? No sweat, OEM van has a dozen more.

 

> As you well know, the Rules charge the player with abiding by them. The Rules say nothing to the OEMs.

 

Exactly.

 

CT testing happens periodically on Tour, and those tested are picked at random. Don't wanna fail the test and have the inconvenience of getting a different driver? Err on the side of caution.

 

As for the blame? It lies solely with the player. No "if"s, "and"s or "but"s. Because that's the nature of the game of golf. Win or lose, or anything in between, the buck stops at the player. Not the caddie. Or OEM. Or anyone else.

 

And regardless of how minor the advantage, the rules are the rules. And in this case, they've been enforced fairly. Regardless of what fans of the player or OEM think. Lol.

[bladehunter]

> @BreakingPar said:

> > @"sui generis" said:

>

> > Pre-event testing, especially with secret results, creates little incentive for the OEM to supply their players with >conforming clubs. Club fails? No sweat, OEM van has a dozen more.

>

> > As you well know, the Rules charge the player with abiding by them. The Rules say nothing to the OEMs.

>

> Exactly.

>

> CT testing happens periodically on Tour, and those tested are picked at random. Don't wanna fail the test and have the inconvenience of getting a different driver? Err on the side of caution.

>

> As for the blame? It lies solely with the player. No "if"s, "and"s or "but"s. Because that's the nature of the game of golf. Win or lose, or anything in between, the buck stops at the player. Not the caddie. Or OEM. Or anyone else.

>

> And regardless of how minor the advantage, the rules are the rules. And in this case, they've been enforced fairly. Regardless of what fans of the player or OEM think. Lol.

 

> @BreakingPar said:

> > @"sui generis" said:

>

> > Pre-event testing, especially with secret results, creates little incentive for the OEM to supply their players with >conforming clubs. Club fails? No sweat, OEM van has a dozen more.

>

> > As you well know, the Rules charge the player with abiding by them. The Rules say nothing to the OEMs.

>

> Exactly.

>

> CT testing happens periodically on Tour, and those tested are picked at random. Don't wanna fail the test and have the inconvenience of getting a different driver? Err on the side of caution.

>

> As for the blame? It lies solely with the player. No "if"s, "and"s or "but"s. Because that's the nature of the game of golf. Win or lose, or anything in between, the buck stops at the player. Not the caddie. Or OEM. Or anyone else.

>

> And regardless of how minor the advantage, the rules are the rules. And in this case, they've been enforced fairly. Regardless of what fans of the player or OEM think. Lol.

 

How ? Please layout the process for a player testing his driver before every round.

[BreakingPar]

> @bladehunter said:

> How ? Please layout the process for a player testing his driver before every round.

 

I'm sorry, maybe I'm missing something. I'm not sure I understand your question...