What's coming next from the USGA and R&A...

[storm319]

44 minutes ago, Nard_S said:

Tour issue drivers are not the same as retail. The COG is higher and more forward. The same can be said for irons. The "." derivative from Callaway is an example. Molinari's blades were not retail MB's. This farce that we want to play their gear is laughable. They use X flex shafts that are often tipped. The #5i weighs as much as retail PW's. Most folks do not play a ball with tour level spin. 

 

If you geared up with their stuff most all would quit the game.  So why are panties in a bunch if we say, TI now means, COR is lower, CC is smaller and a ball that has higher initial spin/launch ratio. It would make zero difference in practice to amateurs, it would do a boatload to restore balance of course to player on the Tour. Does this require some arbitrary "20% roll back"? No. It doesn't. Raise initial spin, lower COR, shrink sweet spot, call it done. 

 

That blanket statement is incredibly misinformed. Some tour issued equipment are different models that are not available at retail while others are literally retail heads that they measure and send out for tour seeding / vans. It all depends on the particular model and how the OEM handles that. Either way, all of it is subject to the same regulation thus is not an example of bifurcation (with exception to the temporary bifurcation we have with the groove rule, but that will end in 2024). The differences that you are referring to are focused on optimization rather than regulation which is available to those who are willing to pay for it. 

 

What you are proposing in that last statement is arbitrarily rolling back regulations without defining and quantifying a goal which is incredibly irresponsible and short sighted ("boatload" does not count as quantifying). Also what would you do with amateurs that have elite level aspirations? How are they supposed to make the jump if the elite level equipment is not available to them? Keep in mind that there are quite a few player profiles between PGA Tour Pro and recreational amateur who does not follow the rules. 

[storm319]

1 hour ago, bladehunter said:

Yep. You’re correct in a lot of instances.  I own several of these examples.  And then the ball.  There are MANY balls we can’t buy  retail.   Titleist alone has a handful of examples.  

 

but again that is not bifurcation which is what he was claiming. Retail availability is unrelated to the rules of golf.  

[Nard_S]

16 minutes ago, storm319 said:

 

That blanket statement is incredibly misinformed. Some tour issued equipment are different models that are not available at retail while others are literally retail heads that they measure and send out for tour seeding / vans. It all depends on the particular model and how the OEM handles that. Either way, all of it is subject to the same regulation thus is not an example of bifurcation (with exception to the temporary bifurcation we have with the groove rule, but that will end in 2024). The differences that you are referring to are focused on optimization rather than regulation which is available to those who are willing to pay for it. 

 

What you are proposing in that last statement is arbitrarily rolling back regulations without defining and quantifying a goal which is incredibly irresponsible and short sighted ("boatload" does not count as quantifying). Also what would you do with amateurs that have elite level aspirations? How are they supposed to make the jump if the elite level equipment is not available to them? Keep in mind that there are quite a few player profiles between PGA Tour Pro and recreational amateur who does not follow the rules. 

I own gear from a Master's champion. I own the retail version of it too. I also own the 681 & the T model that Tiger made famous. They're different. I'm a toolmaker & accomplished one that. I can measure this stuff. Call it optimization, call it what you want, most all amateurs would quit with their setups and yet we hear, this hollow cry of "play what they play". You don't, get over it.

 

Back in day few spent $25/dozen for balls that were destroyed with one thin pass. Most did not play what Pro's played. It would not be much different today to ramp up a tour ball with a specific spin/launch spec that's maybe 5-10% higher. Guy Saturday can buy one but his Kirkland works just fine. Same thing, nothing changes for the enthusiast.

[bscinstnct]

What makes the most sense and is proven to work fine in another sport at the pro level is to

 

Make PGA Tour Pros play with a smaller, steel, driver head and shaft no more than 44’. 
 

College kids, strong ams, mini tour pros, and anybody else can use Titanium or whatever is out there, including the same steel head the pros would have to use, but once your on the PGA Tour, you use the steel head driver. 
 

Same as MLB having to use wood bats.

 

That would be perfect and not impact the ball or rest of the bag.

 

300+ yard drives would still be very much part of the game but require more skill and higher risk to pull off. 
 

The ripple effect would negate the need to keep lengthening courses or the way they should be played, require longer approach shots where the course design intends them to be played, and emphasize a more  risk vs reward balance to going after it.

 

 

 

[Strömsborg]

If I could decide I would roll back the ball AND put a limit on driver head size.

That way we could roll the ball back a little less and have the smaller driver make up for the rest, and also ease the cognitive dissonance created when you hit a limited flight ball with a modern turbo charged toaster driver and see the ball dive like a dead duck.

[bladehunter]

1 hour ago, storm319 said:

 

but again that is not bifurcation which is what he was claiming. Retail availability is unrelated to the rules of golf.  

So ..... if the pro ranks from club pro up decided to ban certain clubs , you wouldn’t consider it a bifurcated rule set for the game ?    Interesting ... maybe that’s the route to take. 

Edited October 23, 2020 by bladehunter

[QuigleyDU]

6 hours ago, NRJyzr said:

 

Are you sure on that 2003?  My reason for asking is that I remember the discussions at the time speaking about how the Tour had switched nearly en masse in late 2000, once the ProV1 was released, and the Titleist ball/shoe/glove guys got their chance.  There were holdouts, but not many.

 

2003 is when we saw the proliferation of launch monitors, and possibly the addition of the firmer lower spin models.  And, larger drivers; the 510TP being one notable club.

 

Apologies if I seem argumentative, I just remember it progressing a little differently....

 

It took a couple of years for them to be widely accepted. You can tell just by looking that the tour averages. 

[QuigleyDU]

Most people keep talking about Bryson and Augusta. So what if he misses the cut? I do not really expect that to happen, but what if? What will be the reaction then?? He has never really done that well there. 

[milesgiles]

8 minutes ago, QuigleyDU said:

Most people keep talking about Bryson and Augusta. So what if he misses the cut? I do not really expect that to happen, but what if? What will be the reaction then?? He has never really done that well there. 

 

I keep trying to say it.. it’s not about Bryson.

 

He has illuminated the issue by taking it to its logical conclusion, and he will influence others especially if the rules bodies do nothing. The best result for people like me is that he wins (because he deserves his success, I admire him hugely for thinking outside the box) and that Augusta at least will say enough is enough and mandate short tees, min lofts or whatever 

[Dr. Block]

8 minutes ago, milesgiles said:

 

I keep trying to say it.. it’s not about Bryson.

 

He has illuminated the issue by taking it to its logical conclusion, and he will influence others especially if the rules bodies do nothing. The best result for people like me is that he wins (because he deserves his success, I admire him hugely for thinking outside the box) and that Augusta at least will say enough is enough and mandate short tees, min lofts or whatever 

People always talk about Byson's Power.  Few ever talk about how he's created a swing that has next to zero clubface rotation through impact.  That is his biggest accomplishment.  He can swing like a stabbed rat at the ball and hit it straight because he has hardly anything to time.  

[QuigleyDU]

9 minutes ago, milesgiles said:

 

I keep trying to say it.. it’s not about Bryson.

 

He has illuminated the issue by taking it to its logical conclusion, and he will influence others especially if the rules bodies do nothing. The best result for people like me is that he wins (because he deserves his success, I admire him hugely for thinking outside the box) and that Augusta at least will say enough is enough and mandate short tees, min lofts or whatever 

I get that, and agree it is bigger than one guy not matter how many protein shakes he drinks. . but he is the current face of the issue. And currently everyone is speculating regarding him and the masters and the aftermath of that. So, the question still stands.. What if.. He does not play well? Does not bring the course to waive the white flag? What if?? It is ok to discuss it.. 

[QuigleyDU]

Just now, Dr. Block said:

People always talk about Byson's Power.  Few ever talk about how he's created a swing that has next to zero clubface rotation through impact.  That is his biggest accomplishment.  He can swing like a stabbed rat at the ball and hit it straight because he has hardly anything to time.  

Actually he has tricked us all into thinking that. His biggest accomplishment is... drum rolll... his putting improvement.. 

[Dr. Block]

1 minute ago, QuigleyDU said:

Actually he has tricked us all into thinking that. His biggest accomplishment is... drum rolll... his putting improvement.. 

Haha.  I see what you did there.  His short game too.   I do find what he does with his grip in relation to the outward rotation of his left forearm pretty ingenious though

[NRJyzr]

29 minutes ago, QuigleyDU said:

It took a couple of years for them to be widely accepted. You can tell just by looking that the tour averages. 

 

As it was reported at the time, those growing pains (figuratively speaking) occurred during 2000, maybe early 2001.  Hence the flat change from 2001 to 2002.  Among players participating in both years.

 

The overall Tour average isn't interesting to the "distance increase" discussion, with respect tkk the ball, because new players are part of that equation.  Those new players being younger, and theoretically longer, than the older players present in both ends of that 4 year range.

 

A fair bit of generalization in there, of course.

 

[QuigleyDU]

Just now, Dr. Block said:

Haha.  I see what you did there.  His short game too.   I do find what he does with his grip in relation to the outward rotation of his left forearm pretty ingenious though

No, not short game. Just putting. He has become an outstanding putter. His wedge game leaves some to be desired.. 

 

It is his wedge game and those tricky greens at Augusta that will give him fits. 

[Titleist99]

2 minutes ago, QuigleyDU said:

Actually he has tricked us all into thinking that. His biggest accomplishment is... drum rolll... his putting improvement.. 

Bingo !!!! .......His routine now is always the same and he has become a great putter....IMO   If they want to stop BDC then they should outlaw the arm lock.

[Dr. Block]

Just now, QuigleyDU said:

No, not short game. Just putting. He has become an outstanding putter. His wedge game leaves some to be desired.. 

 

It is his wedge game and those tricky greens at Augusta that will give him fits. 

His pitching and sand game is much improved from his first few years on tour.  He had many quality up and downs in his US open win that he wasn't getting earlier in his career.  His short game has improved just as much as his putting. 

[mahonie]

Just now, QuigleyDU said:

No, not short game. Just putting. He has become an outstanding putter. His wedge game leaves some to be desired.. 

 

It is his wedge game and those tricky greens at Augusta that will give him fits. 

I just read that he was 4th average putting last year...trying to find the stats to back that up. He did shoot 66 to tie first round lead but then fell away and was best amateur a few tears ago.

[QuigleyDU]

1 minute ago, NRJyzr said:

 

As it was reported at the time, those growing pains (figuratively speaking) occurred during 2000, maybe early 2001.  Hence the flat change from 2001 to 2002.  Among players participating in both years.

 

The overall Tour average isn't interesting to the "distance increase" discussion, with respect tkk the ball, because new players are part of that equation.  Those new players being younger, and theoretically longer, than the older players present in both ends of that 4 year range.

 

A fair bit of generalization in there, of course.

 

It is interesting if you look at the driving stats for those three years and who was on top.. 

 

Would you ever guess that Scott McCarron was in the top 5 that year?? He was. Three years later in 2003 the longest single season record was set (till 2020) by Hank kuehne and the top 5 was Kuekne, Daly, Mikelson, Clarke, Els. 

 

[QuigleyDU]

3 minutes ago, Titleist99 said:

Bingo !!!! .......His routine now is always the same and he has become a great putter....IMO   If they want to stop BDC then they should outlaw the arm lock.

haha. Why do we always have to ban things?? haha. Cant we just enjoy something? 

[QuigleyDU]

3 minutes ago, mahonie said:

I just read that he was 4th average putting last year...trying to find the stats to back that up. He did shoot 66 to tie first round lead but then fell away and was best amateur a few tears ago.

Best finish was as an AM at 21st I think.. 

[NRJyzr]

22 minutes ago, QuigleyDU said:

It is interesting if you look at the driving stats for those three years and who was on top.. 

 

Would you ever guess that Scott McCarron was in the top 5 that year?? He was. Three years later in 2003 the longest single season record was set (till 2020) by Hank kuehne and the top 5 was Kuekne, Daly, Mikelson, Clarke, Els. 

 

 

I found it even more fun looking at Jim Furyk, whose distance increased as he went from Strata to Strata, and the stagnation of distance for DL3, who was instrumental in getting the V1 released by threatening to leave for greener pastures.  

 

[QuigleyDU]

10 minutes ago, NRJyzr said:

 

I found it even more fun looking at Jim Furyk, whose distance increased as he went from Strata to Strata, and the stagnation of distance for DL3, who was instrumental in getting the V1 released by threatening to leave for greener pastures.  

 

I think DL3 may have still been using a persimmons at that point.. haha. 

 

 

I know he wasn't... Just Messing around. 

Edited October 23, 2020 by QuigleyDU

[Dr. Block]

56 minutes ago, QuigleyDU said:

It is interesting if you look at the driving stats for those three years and who was on top.. 

 

Would you ever guess that Scott McCarron was in the top 5 that year?? He was. Three years later in 2003 the longest single season record was set (till 2020) by Hank kuehne and the top 5 was Kuekne, Daly, Mikelson, Clarke, Els. 

 

I remember following Phil when he got the last incarnation of the Yonex driver he used before going to Titleist (pretty sure the year was 1999).  That club was ahead of its time for launch and killing spin.  He was teeing the ball way up and just murdering the thing that day.  Hitting the high launch lower spin trajectory we all take for granted now, and he was doing it with the Titleist Professional wound ball.   The calves were probably lacking back then though 🙂

Edited October 23, 2020 by Dr. Block

[mahonie]

26 minutes ago, NRJyzr said:

 

I found it even more fun looking at Jim Furyk, whose distance increased as he went from Strata to Strata, and the stagnation of distance for DL3, who was instrumental in getting the V1 released by threatening to leave for greener pastures.  

 

It was actually Mickelson who threatened to leave Titleist if they did not launch a ball that was as good as the Callaway Rule 35 that he had been testing. Titleist then released the patent infringing Pro V1 that led to all that litigation when Mickelson was required to testify.

[QuigleyDU]

1 minute ago, mahonie said:

It was actually Mickelson who threatened to leave Titleist if they did not launch a ball that was as good as the Callaway Rule 35 that he had been testing. Titleist then released the patent infringing Pro V1 that led to all that litigation when Mickelson was required to testify.

That rule 35 ball was soooo good. And sooo under-rated.. 

 

I think it was due to the strange packaging.. haha. 

[Nard_S]

Norman lost a bunch of tournaments with that Spalding Z ball. Spun like a demon. Nick Price became #1 in the mid 90's. He did it using a Precept solid ball when the rest of field still played wound. Coincidence? When Tiger went nuts everybody finally converted.

[mahonie]

8 minutes ago, QuigleyDU said:

That rule 35 ball was soooo good. And sooo under-rated.. 

 

I think it was due to the strange packaging.. haha. 

It was so good Titleist ripped it off and ran off into the distance...don’t pardon the pun 

[QuigleyDU]

7 minutes ago, mahonie said:

It was so good Titleist ripped it off and ran off into the distance...don’t pardon the pun 

I am very not in the know on this situation, but I do remember it some.. Titleist won the court case, but that does not mean they didn't steal anything. 

 

TITLEIST WINS DECISION IN PRO V1 PATENT DISPUTE WITH CALLAWAY

Fairhaven, MA (March 29, 2010)– Acushnet Company, the golf business of Fortune Brands, Inc. (NYSE: FO), and manufacturer of Titleist, the #1 ball in golf, announced that it won a jury verdict in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware in its golf ball patent dispute with Callaway Golf Co.. Callaway asserted that previous generation Titleist Pro V1 golf balls had infringed on four patents originally owned by Spalding and subsequently purchased by Callaway Golf. The jury agreed with Acushnet’s position that the patents in question are invalid.

“We are extremely pleased with the court’s decision, and we hope that this finally brings this long standing dispute to a close,” said Joe Nauman, Executive Vice President, Corporate and Legal, Acushnet Company. “We have explained throughout this process that Acushnet independently developed the technology in question. The Titleist Pro V1 family utilizes technology from 74 Acushnet patents and was first introduced to our PGA TOUR players in October 2000, well before any of the Spalding patents were issued in 2001 and 2003. We appreciate the jury’s careful consideration of the facts and the time they devoted to these proceedings. This verdict affirms our view that all claims in these patents are invalid – just as the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office (PTO) has repeatedly found.”

In January 2006, before Callaway filed this litigation, Acushnet petitioned the PTO to reexamine the four patents in the suit. Since then, the PTO has repeatedly found that all claims of all four patents are invalid. During this process, seven separate PTO examiners were involved in evaluating the validity of these patents and all seven concluded that they are invalid.

Acushnet Company has a comprehensive product and process Research and Development staff and the Pro V1 golf ball franchise represents the accumulation of technology developed by Acushnet over a 20-year period. As the worldwide golf ball performance and technology leader, Acushnet currently holds over 715 of the nearly 2,000 active patents related to golf balls – more than any other manufacturer.

[storm319]

6 minutes ago, Nard_S said:

I own gear from a Master's champion. I own the retail version of it too. I also own the 681 & the T model that Tiger made famous. They're different. I'm a toolmaker & accomplished one that. I can measure this stuff. Call it optimization, call it what you want, most all amateurs would quit with their setups and yet we hear, this hollow cry of "play what they play". You don't, get over it.

 

Back in day few spent $25/dozen for balls that were destroyed with one thin pass. Most did not play what Pro's played. It would not be much different today to ramp up a tour ball with a specific spin/launch spec that's maybe 5-10% higher. Guy Saturday can buy one but his Kirkland works just fine. Same thing, nothing changes for the enthusiast.

 

You are now talking about different models. What you cannot do is make blanket statements that everything that is considered "tour issued" is drastically different than retail because that is not true (a sample of every different driver model needs to be submitted to the USGA for conformance testing in order to be put into play so all you need to do is look at the USGA conforming list to see what actually exists on tour). Are certain models different from retail? Yes. Are all? No. 

 

Next, do you really think that a 5-10% spin increase off the driver would resolve all of your current criticisms? Here is what it would look like if we consider Trackman's provided tour averages:

 

Current Ball Speed = 167

Current Launch = 10.9

Current Spin = 2686

+5% Launch = 11.4

+5% Spin = 2820

+10% Launch =11.9

+10% Spin = 2954

 

Carry Distances using the Flightscope optimizer:

Current: 273.4 yards

+5%: 273.3 yards

+10%: 272.9 yards

 

Not to mention that any change related to launch and spin could be circumvented with swing changes. The only ways to universally reduce distance would be to reduce speed (either directly or indirectly) or drastically increase drag.