Xander Schauffele's Callaway Driver Failed COR Test

[Titletown]

> @DavePelz4 said:

> > @grm24 said:

> > > @Fade said:

> > > > @"Night train" said:

> > > > It seems odd that four drivers failed the test.............and his was the only name that leaked out

> > >

> > > I think Xander disclosed his failing in an interview. The R&A did not come out with it.

> >

> > Appears the R&A did leak.

> > https://www.golf.com/news/2019/07/20/xander-schauffele-pissed-driver-results-leaked-cheater/

> > What initially drew Schauffele’s ire was his allegation that his test results had been leaked.

> >

> > _“We’re the traveling circus. There’s certain moving parts on Tour here — and everyone on the grounds knew for some odd reason. So that’s enough to throw me off my game. I can handle it, I’m a big boy,” he said. “But it was just handled unprofessionally. And it did tick me off, for sure.”_

>

> Think he was equally concerned about being labeled as a cheater and having his marketability questioned which could cost more than a tournament earnings. For us old guys who followed the LPGA in its early days, Jane Blalock was accused of cheating and suspended by the LPGA. She filed a lawsuit against the LPGA, won the lawsuit which then LPGA then appealed. They settled 3 years later in her favor but Blacklock forever was considered a cheater in spite of being vindicated.

 

he can't and shouldn't be labeled a cheater because he didn't use a non-conforming driver in play

[bladehunter]

> @Titletown said:

> > @DavePelz4 said:

> > > @grm24 said:

> > > > @Fade said:

> > > > > @"Night train" said:

> > > > > It seems odd that four drivers failed the test.............and his was the only name that leaked out

> > > >

> > > > I think Xander disclosed his failing in an interview. The R&A did not come out with it.

> > >

> > > Appears the R&A did leak.

> > > https://www.golf.com/news/2019/07/20/xander-schauffele-pissed-driver-results-leaked-cheater/

> > > What initially drew Schauffele’s ire was his allegation that his test results had been leaked.

> > >

> > > _“We’re the traveling circus. There’s certain moving parts on Tour here — and everyone on the grounds knew for some odd reason. So that’s enough to throw me off my game. I can handle it, I’m a big boy,” he said. “But it was just handled unprofessionally. And it did tick me off, for sure.”_

> >

> > Think he was equally concerned about being labeled as a cheater and having his marketability questioned which could cost more than a tournament earnings. For us old guys who followed the LPGA in its early days, Jane Blalock was accused of cheating and suspended by the LPGA. She filed a lawsuit against the LPGA, won the lawsuit which then LPGA then appealed. They settled 3 years later in her favor but Blacklock forever was considered a cheater in spite of being vindicated.

>

> he can't and shouldn't be labeled a cheater because he didn't use a non-conforming driver in play

 

Actually shouldn’t matter if in play or not. Shouldn’t be labeled a cheater because he didn’t knowingly even own an illegal driver. Cheat label implies complicity.

[Bad9]

> @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.

 

Still not sure how this makes Callaway look bad. They provided him with a driver months ago which he has used to hit thousands of balls. Does Callaway, or any OEM, routinely test clubs that have been used by players to ensure they still conform? I can't imagine that they would. It seems to me that much of the commentary here are people looking to bash on Callaway for anything and everything.

[MidwestGolfBum]

> @Bad9 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.

>

> Still not sure how this makes Callaway look bad. They provided him with a driver months ago which he has used to hit thousands of balls. Does Callaway, or any OEM, routinely test clubs that have been used by players to ensure they still conform? I can't imagine that they would. It seems to me that much of the commentary here are people looking to bash on Callaway for anything and everything.

 

It's been mentioned before in this thread that there are manufacturers who will do COR tests throughout the season on players clubs as to never get into a situation like this. Titleist is the one that was mentioned, for example.

 

It's a bad look in the sense that they may look as though they are producing equipment that isn't conforming, even if not true like 99.9999999% of the time. It's also a bad look for the R&A as they are the ones who seem to have leaked the information to media/public about who's driver failed. had no mention been made of it publicly, I would guess Xander would have put a different head in play and nobody would have even noticed.

[OldTomMorris]

> @Bad9 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.

>

> Still not sure how this makes Callaway look bad. They provided him with a driver months ago which he has used to hit thousands of balls. Does Callaway, or any OEM, routinely test clubs that have been used by players to ensure they still conform? I can't imagine that they would. It seems to me that much of the commentary here are people looking to bash on Callaway for anything and everything.

 

I like Callaway, I used Mack Daddy wedges and I'm considering other clubs. All the testing/tweaking etc. these companies do in conjunction with the players to get the right setup and surely they are aware this can happen to a driver so why not periodically check for it?

[lopey986]

> @getair23 said:

> > @Stuart_G said:

> > > @bladehunter said:

> > >

> > > Not arguing as much as not understanding. Shaving I get. You remove material to make it thinner. Which will flex more for a short period of time. Then it cracks. But minus removing material. I don’t get it. If it flexes more than the frame allows won’t it just flatten. As I’ve done to sooo many 3 wood faces ? Then it’s utterly dead.

> >

> > I don't have links but seen many credible reports of heads getting hotter - much more commonly among the long drive folks. But it's not a gradual weakening or progression over time - it's usually something that happens shortly before a more complete catastrophic failure. Likely the development and progression of micro-fractures or over stressed welds that weaken the face (allowing for the hotter performance) but which eventually leads to the full failure shortly after. And sorry, no I don't remember the time frames involved between when it's first noticeable and when the more severe failure occurs.

> >

> >

>

> Based on this, R&A possibly did Xander a favor saving him from a cracked driver face mid tournament round. The best ting Xander could have done was to keep it all to himself.

 

Except it got out there. Xander mentioned that someone "jokingly" called him a cheater in a large setting of other tour players after the testing was done. So, it was leaked, hence Xander's response to the whole thing.

[I_HATE_SNOW]

It would be nice to know industry protocols on the testing, instead of guessing what happens. Would also be nice to know how repeatable and consistent the tests are.

[Stuart_G]

> @I_HATE_SNOW said:

> It would be nice to know industry protocols on the testing, instead of guessing what happens. Would also be nice to know how repeatable and consistent the tests are.

 

https://www.usga.org/content/dam/usga/pdf/Equipment/TPX3004-procedure-for-measuring-the-flexibility-of-a-golf-clubhead.pdf

 

[I_HATE_SNOW]

> @Stuart_G said:

> > @I_HATE_SNOW said:

> > It would be nice to know industry protocols on the testing, instead of guessing what happens. Would also be nice to know how repeatable and consistent the tests are.

>

> https://www.usga.org/content/dam/usga/pdf/Equipment/TPX3004-procedure-for-measuring-the-flexibility-of-a-golf-clubhead.pdf

>

 

That is the USGA protocol, thanks. Still like to know industry protocol, percentage tested, etc. I would think they would test every head in the tour van? Does temperature, air pressure effect results? How repeatable are they? How consistent are the tests between machines? Would be nice to see the variability of the time over the entire face, kind of a map of the hot spot.

[PostandGhost]

> @I_HATE_SNOW said:

> It would be nice to know industry protocols on the testing, instead of guessing what happens. Would also be nice to know how repeatable and consistent the tests are.

A 3rd party can easily get a different number than the factory where the head produced, especially when it comes to CT testing. Personally, I think the clamp is not close enough to the tower on the testing apparatus that most people use, but no one listens to me. The same tester can get different readings on different parts of the face, depending on where the pendulum strikes. There's also a variety of external factors that come into play on the testing. That, among several other reasons, is why there is a tolerance level written into the rule. I don't have first hand knowledge on how the R&A conducts their test. I would suspect the R&A testing procedures are similar to the USGA, if not exactly the same. Here is a link to how the USGA performs the test:

https://www.usga.org/content/dam/usga/pdf/Equipment/TPX3004-procedure-for-measuring-the-flexibility-of-a-golf-clubhead.pdf

 

I had a very short stint on a PGA Tour Van for a manufacturer many moons ago and what I can tell you is that most of the heads are pushing the limits, at least back then, based on my personal experience. Things might have changed in the last few years but I doubt it. The fact that there have been a few heads that tested over 257 microseconds leads me to believe things haven't changed. The CT number is like a placebo effect for a lot of players out on tour, when it probably gives them little to no benefit. The way to solve the problem is to have the manufacturers adhere to the 239 legal limit, which is already the rule. Tour vans should not carry heads tested to be over 239 microseconds. The extra 18 microseconds is written into the rule for tolerance purposes with regard to retail manufacturing and testing conformity. Essentially, any head that measures 239 from the tour van should never measure 258 from a 3rd party test. Problem solved.

[Stuart_G]

> @I_HATE_SNOW said:

> > @Stuart_G said:

> > > @I_HATE_SNOW said:

> > > It would be nice to know industry protocols on the testing, instead of guessing what happens. Would also be nice to know how repeatable and consistent the tests are.

> >

> > https://www.usga.org/content/dam/usga/pdf/Equipment/TPX3004-procedure-for-measuring-the-flexibility-of-a-golf-clubhead.pdf

> >

>

> That is the USGA protocol, thanks. Still like to know industry protocol, percentage tested, etc. I would think they would test every head in the tour van? Does temperature, air pressure effect results? How repeatable are they? How consistent are the tests between machines? Would be nice to see the variability of the time over the entire face, kind of a map of the hot spot.

 

I knew you wanted more just thought that would be a good start.

 

As far as accuracy and repeatability of the tests all I know is that they are generally considered quite accurate by industry experts (for drivers only) and the testing procedures itself allow for a tolerance of 18 microseconds - which typically is pretty indicative of the accuracy of the testing procedure. But if you want more specific numbers on accuracy you could try contacting (PM) Tom Wishon. I know he was involved in some research on that specific topic back when the ruling bodies made the switch from the air cannon test.

 

As far as what the OEM's do - I agree it would be interesting to know. I would hope that they all test the tour issue heads - and we do know that TM includes the CT values on the spec labels - but other than that - good luck. They do tend to be a little tight mouthed at times - but you never know.

 

> @From_Parts_Unknown said:

> The same tester can get different readings on different parts of the face, depending on where the pendulum strikes.

 

The testing protocols dictate the location on the face that's supposed to be tested and how to make sure the correct location is tested. So any variation of that kind would be considered operator error and not really part of the inaccuracy of the testing method.

[DavePelz4]

Because CT was a new term to me, I Googled it and found this useful and recent doc that details it. It's amazing that there are instruments that can measure time to that level of detail.

 

[https://liveabout.com/characteristic-time-ct-1562723](https://www.liveabout.com/characteristic-time-ct-1562723 "https://liveabout.com/characteristic-time-ct-1562723")

[bladehunter]

> @From_Parts_Unknown said:

> > @I_HATE_SNOW said:

> > It would be nice to know industry protocols on the testing, instead of guessing what happens. Would also be nice to know how repeatable and consistent the tests are.

> A 3rd party can easily get a different number than the factory where the head produced, especially when it comes to CT testing. Personally, I think the clamp is not close enough to the tower on the testing apparatus that most people use, but no one listens to me. The same tester can get different readings on different parts of the face, depending on where the pendulum strikes. There's also a variety of external factors that come into play on the testing. That, among several other reasons, is why there is a tolerance level written into the rule. I don't have first hand knowledge on how the R&A conducts their test. I would suspect the R&A testing procedures are similar to the USGA, if not exactly the same. Here is a link to how the USGA performs the test:

> https://www.usga.org/content/dam/usga/pdf/Equipment/TPX3004-procedure-for-measuring-the-flexibility-of-a-golf-clubhead.pdf

>

> I had a very short stint on a PGA Tour Van for a manufacturer many moons ago and what I can tell you is that most of the heads are pushing the limits, at least back then, based on my personal experience. Things might have changed in the last few years but I doubt it. The fact that there have been a few heads that tested over 257 microseconds leads me to believe things haven't changed. The CT number is like a placebo effect for a lot of players out on tour, when it probably gives them little to no benefit. The way to solve the problem is to have the manufacturers adhere to the 239 legal limit, which is already the rule. Tour vans should not carry heads tested to be over 239 microseconds. The extra 18 microseconds is written into the rule for tolerance purposes with regard to retail manufacturing and testing conformity. Essentially, any head that measures 239 from the tour van should never measure 258 from a 3rd party test. Problem solved.

 

Exactly what I was wondering and getting at with my earlier posts.

 

It’s the extra 18 variance that’s the issue coupled with an imprecise test.

[I_HATE_SNOW]

What happens to the head? R & A keep it? Love to see it tested by a third party.

[irvnasty]

Seems like Schauffele got a bit sensitive when some of his peers chose to make the failed test a topic of discussion. Obviously it's Callaway's job to give him equipment that conforms. I do think periodic and unannounced whole-field testing would be a better protocol for the RBs to use, but I don't think this one is bad, and I don't think Xander should be critical of it.

 

Like others in this thread, I'd assume that he chose a driver that was pushing the limits and that it migrated out of spec with use. What's interesting to me is that his fellow competitors would consider it worthy of a snide comment or two. If, for instance, Schauffele was in the habit of taking several drivers that had not been individually checked and choosing the hottest among them, arguably he's knowingly and intentionally using a selection process designed to find a driver that exceeds the limit. If that were the case, I wouldn't blame his fellow competitors for thinking it reflects poorly on him. I just don't see how something like that would be the case, however, given how involved the OEM seems to be with top-level pro equipment.

 

[b.helts]

Callaway gave him a hot driver to get him away from his beloved TaylorMade driver. Callaway got caught. Xander got embarrassed.

[stanger37]

Also have to think Xander got as defensive as he did because we all saw the social media (and this forum) slam Kuchar for anything and everything this season. Kuchar used his little nice guy schtick to attempt to avoid it. Xander is getting in front of it and shutting it down. I am sure if they were in the truck and his buddy made a comment about checking the wedge grooves, it may get a look but also a laugh. You say it in front of the crowd that has social media at their fingertips. I think it'd be a little peeved too.

[buckeyefl]

> @"b.helts" said:

> Callaway gave him a hot driver to get him away from his beloved TaylorMade driver. Callaway got caught. Xander got embarrassed.

 

Yes thats it! He held out for that 1/10th of a yard on a random hit on the perfect spot while risking his reputation and potential future sponsors. Thats why it took so long to get him into their driver! Well played Callaway.

[NoFancyUsername.]

This is what happens when manufacturers try to get one over their competitors. They push the boundaries right up to the line you can't cross. I'm sure if the new taylormade drivers that are being made illegal then injected singularly to bring them back within spec are tested a few months down the road, there would be many that would not pass the test.

[OBbogey5]

I like that Xander. He seems like a straight shooter. And I believe he took responsibility where it was needed, and then called out the ruling bodies, as is his prerogative.

 

Would love to hear the more out spoken players (Pat Perez!) comment on what occurred.

[bladehunter]

> @I_HATE_SNOW said:

> What happens to the head? R & A keep it? Love to see it tested by a third party.

 

Me too

[nsxguy]

> @"b.helts" said:

> Callaway gave him a hot driver to get him away from his beloved TaylorMade driver. Callaway got caught. Xander got embarrassed.

 


 

[stanger37]

Dick Rugge was on XM92 with Katrek and Maginnes, he was the technical director at the USGA and came up with the one of the first tests. He said Xander was 1 microsecond over the tolerance of 18 given, so technically total of 19 over with a driver at 258. Tests take only about 90 seconds per club and you don't have to take off the shaft or anything. The machine itself has a tolerance of about 6microseconds. Doesn't understand why any of the OEMs, that have the testers in all of their facilities, make anything over 250 because you are still 11 over tolerance and even if the machine is the 6 it can be possibly off, you'll still be under the R&A and PGA tolerance with a max of 256. All OEMs have to do is buy the license and get certified to have the test machine on their tour trucks.

 

Not sure if anyone else listened but it was interesting. Mentioned how he thinks players get infatuated with TrackMan numbers of ball speed on this driver head was 162.2 but this was 162.4, we're going to use this one! And in reality, that extra bit is about 4inches of total distance. Every 10microseconds I THINK he said was a foot, MAYBE a yard. I don't fully remember. Interesting listen though for sure.

[grm24]

Now Xander says he doesn't think the R&A leaked his test result.

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

 

_“I don’t think the R&A leaked the information,” Schauffele said. “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.”_

[b.helts]

lol @ you guys that are so quick to jump on someone. Have a little fun from time to time.

[15th Club]

So after all of the usual kerfuffle, the same ending to most golf Rules disputes.

 

The ruling bodies acted correctly.

 

The Tour players once again demonstrated their ignorance and immaturity. (In this case, the ones calling “cheater,” and Schauffele’s now-seemingly baseless claim of “leaking” versus the R&A.)

 

The modern golfing press/media is, just about as often as not, promoting stories and not detailed facts.

 

And social media makes all of it worse.

 

 

 

[bladehunter]

Agree with you 15th /^. But I’d still love to see that head tested by a third party. And love to see it tested again by callaway.

 

I agree they shouldn’t push that limit for the allowed variance. But. If they didn’t want oems to push it they shouldn’t allow the variance.

 

Looks like what I said was exactly the case. 1 microsecond. Wow. With a machine variance of 6. So easy to say that callaway tested and reported it accurately and the two machines are 2-6 points off in calibration.

[Stuart_G]

> @bladehunter said:

> I agree they shouldn’t push that limit for the allowed variance. But. If they didn’t want oems to push it they shouldn’t allow the variance.

 

No, that would only change where the limit was, not how much it would be 'pushed'.

 

[15th Club]

Bladehunter the limit is 239 microseconds, with a variant-limit above that. So the Schauffele driver was many microseconds above 239. Not close.

 

I saw a quote from somebody at PXG, in the course of denying that one of their drivers was found non-conforming at the Open. He said that none of their drivers were over the limit. But that they were “right at the limit.” What does that even mean? Knowingly over the 239 microseconds limit and consciously using the extra allowance for testing error?

 

This again is more of the cops-and-robbers aspect of golf equipment. Makes me even more of a fanatical supporter of the ruling bodies.

[bladehunter]

> @Stuart_G said:

> > @bladehunter said:

> > I agree they shouldn’t push that limit for the allowed variance. But. If they didn’t want oems to push it they shouldn’t allow the variance.

>

> No, that would only change where the limit was, not how much it would be 'pushed'.

>

 

If they have no level of variance above 239 then guys wood be below 239.