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

[clevited]

1 minute ago, QuigleyDU said:

I am not swinging my best today. Here are driver numbers from a previous day.

 

 

Nice bomb.  Love me some long drive porn! 😍

[QuigleyDU]

5 minutes ago, Shilgy said:

Which is why the cries to make drivers smaller....275 to 325cc seems to be most suggestioned.....don’t accomplish anything to speak of. And this example is a non tour player performing an experiment. The pro would get it dialed in and lose essentially nothing.

Agreed..the only potential there is maybe more wayward drives.. maybe..

Edited October 24, 2020 by QuigleyDU

[oikos1]

7 minutes ago, QuigleyDU said:

I am not swinging my best today. Here are driver numbers from a previous day.

 

 

Impressive!  You must be bored with this silly game.  😁

[storm319]

48 minutes ago, Nard_S said:

And I say "Yes!" to increasing drag & reducing ball speed via COR.  Ball tech is multi-faceted, initial spin/launch is one aspect but not all of it.. They easily can make it play more "balata like" from tee to green and keep the superior short game characteristics going.

 

Taylor Made  has a separate design for TI driver heads, so does Callaway w/ their diamond series. "." & H stamped in irons. Bubba's Pings resemble nothing that is retail in practical use. Titleist at one time was awesome about custom grinds, they probably still are, cause Spieth's irons are not off the shelf. Hogan had specs that never made it to retail. . Molinari's Apex MB's can be had for $3400 from Miura. There's probably a lot more and I could probably add a few more but who cares? Point is you never played what they played and you do not play their course or anything near their conditions.

 

So, tour gear is not retail gear, never was never will be. So let's drop the pretense.

So, tour setup is not amateur setup, so let's drop that pretense.

Um, we play rec softball, they play at Fenway, so let's drop the pretense that bifurcation is a deal killer.

This has been mentioned at nauseam. Initial ball velocity has been regulated since the 1940s so solid core, multilayer urethane balls have been subject to the same regulations as wound balata balls were. Wound balls will be slower today due to degradation over the years, but if Titleist were to produce a brand new Tour Balata today it would produce similar ball speeds to the ProV1. 
 

I am not sure why you keep ranting about tour issues equipment as none of it has anything to do with the rules of golf. Many including the USGA believe that bifurcation of the rules is not in the best interest of the game. The reality is that you are very ignorantly advocating for a rollback of equipment based on subjective, anecdotal opinion and failing to consider the potentially negative consequences. 
 

The reality is that we can both play with our preferred equipment today and still be within the rules. A rollback takes that choice away from some of us. 

[QuigleyDU]

12 minutes ago, oikos1 said:

 

Impressive!  You must be bored with this silly game.  😁

I wish...

[Nard_S]

2 minutes ago, storm319 said:

This has been mentioned at nauseam. Initial ball velocity has been regulated since the 1940s so solid core, multilayer urethane balls have been subject to the same regulations as wound balata balls were. Wound balls will be slower today due to degradation over the years, but if Titleist were to produce a brand new Tour Balata today it would produce similar ball speeds to the ProV1. 
 

I am not sure why you keep ranting about tour issues equipment as none of it has anything to do with the rules of golf. Many including the USGA believe that bifurcation of the rules is not in the best interest of the game. The reality is that you are very ignorantly advocating for a rollback of equipment based on subjective, anecdotal opinion and failing to consider the potentially negative consequences. 
 

The reality is that we can both play with our preferred equipment today and still be within the rules. A rollback takes that choice away from some of us. 

If you think a Tour 100 behaves the same as a Pro V1, we have nothing to discuss.

[storm319]

17 minutes ago, Shilgy said:

Which is why the cries to make drivers smaller....275 to 325cc seems to be most suggestioned.....don’t accomplish anything to speak of. And this example is a non tour player performing an experiment. The pro would get it dialed in and lose essentially nothing.

Agree that a reduction in club head size likely wouldn’t reduce distance averages on Tour much but it could possibly prevent an LDA, swing out of your boots approach becoming the norm in the future. With that said if Tour players today are swinging with a greater emphasis on distance than accuracy off the tee, then I highly doubt a head size rollback (or any distance rollback for that matter) would change that.

[clevited]

Not to make a tangent, and I know this is a bit random, but for those that are interested, I dug up some pics I took comparing some 20+ year old wound balls to a modern ProV1. 

 

I did so because in every one of these threads, tests of these balls get used as ammo to show how bad the ball used to be.  I knew these balls don't shelve well, so a while back, i bought some.  Been meaning to do a new thread but I will post in here just for your enjoyment.

 

FYI: Both balls shrunk considerably, with the Professional 100 being much worse than the Tour Balata 100.  The Pro 100 lost so much weight that it is severely deformed and wouldn't stay label up.  

 

 

Edited October 24, 2020 by clevited

[clevited]

One more for laughs...

 

 

[clevited]

13 minutes ago, storm319 said:

Agree that a reduction in club head size likely wouldn’t reduce distance averages on Tour much but it could possibly prevent an LDA, swing out of your boots approach becoming the norm in the future. With that said if Tour players today are swinging with a greater emphasis on distance than accuracy off the tee, then I highly doubt a head size rollback (or any distance rollback for that matter) would change that.

 

I am not pro, and I am not as good of a golfer as many of you, but I know I can get in a good groove on the driving range and essentially be able to swing as hard as I want and square the club up every time.  If I can do that, I feel like it wouldn't be a stretch to assume a pro could do it practically 100% of the time.

[storm319]

6 minutes ago, Nard_S said:

If you think a Tour 100 behaves the same as a Pro V1, we have nothing to discuss.

I am very interested to see your objective evidence that a ProV1 produces drastically higher ball speeds than a newly produced Tour Balata 100 would all other variables being equal. Comparisons I have seen between NOS wound vs multilayer balls have shown only a few mph difference in ball speed (and that is even with the degradation that is inherent with wound construction after a few years).

[bscinstnct]

46 minutes ago, Shilgy said:

Which is why the cries to make drivers smaller....275 to 325cc seems to be most suggestioned.....don’t accomplish anything to speak of. And this example is a non tour player performing an experiment. The pro would get it dialed in and lose essentially nothing.

 

Not just the size. Steel heads, no Titanium. 44” max shaft length.

 

The distance leaders will look more like in 2000. As you can see, just changing from the steel/steel set up to the Ti/Graphite, TW picked up 18 yards and the whole tour (per the average there) picked up 16 yards 

 

 

 

Edited October 24, 2020 by bscinstnct

[clevited]

1 minute ago, storm319 said:

I am very interested to see your objective evidence that a ProV1 produces drastically higher ball speeds than a newly produced Tour Balata 100 would all other variables being equal. Comparisons I have seen between NOS wound vs multilayer balls have shown only a few mph difference in ball speed (and that is even with the degradation that is inherent with wound construction after a few years).

 

I should post that Tour Balata ball spec image again.  Advertises very precise dimensions, weight and ball speed at the USGA required limits.  Same limits we have today.  I would bet good money a brand new Tour 100 or brand new Pro 100 would be almost negligibly different from a ProV1 launch numbers wise off a modern driver face.

[clevited]

4 minutes ago, bscinstnct said:

 

Not just the size. Steel heads, no Titanium. 44” max shaft length.

 

The distance leaders will look more like in 2000. As you can see, just changing from the steel/steel set up to the Ti/Graphite, TW picked up 18 yards.

 

 

 

 

Funny thing, I have that exact driver.  When I get a new launch monitor I should test.  I don't think it is as big of a nerf bat as you think though.  Even at 44 inches.

 

Edit: Nvm, you meant clubs before the one in that picture.  I have a Callaway big bertha, does that count?

Edited October 24, 2020 by clevited

[Nard_S]

It's not the ball speed that is the difference but you would know that if you ever actually played them. That's exactly the problem. That's why I'm from Mars and you're from Venus.

[storm319]

2 minutes ago, clevited said:

 

I am not pro, and I am not as good of a golfer as many of you, but I know I can get in a good groove on the driving range and essentially be able to swing as hard as I want and square the club up every time.  If I can do that, I feel like it wouldn't be a stretch to assume a pro could do it practically 100% of the time.

I would imagine nerves from the huge money at stake and having all eyes on you might contribute to a mishit or two 😉

 

 

[bscinstnct]

15 minutes ago, clevited said:

 

Funny thing, I have that exact driver.  When I get a new launch monitor I should test.  I don't think it is as big of a nerf bat as you think though.  Even at 44 inches.

 

Edit: Nvm, you meant clubs before the one in that picture.  I have a Callaway big bertha, does that count?

 

Ya, think that’s the 975d. And believe he played a 43” steel shaft.

 

But, yeah, that’s the idea, just roll back the driver. 
 

It’s like MLB, the pros go old school. I mean, these are pros and they got Space Age composite toasters with all kinds of screws and gears and plugs and adjustments and 46”+ shafts?!

 

Its pretty idiotic if you think about it.

 

 

Edited October 24, 2020 by bscinstnct

[clevited]

23 minutes ago, Nard_S said:

It's not the ball speed that is the difference but you would know that if you ever actually played them. That's exactly the problem. That's why I'm from Mars and you're from Venus.

 

You have seen Shiels video right?  While i will say that a test with any wound ball, or really any ball of more than a few years old is rather invalid, you can learn some stuff.  Off the driver, the pro 90 spin compared to a ProV1 and  it's amount offline, wasn't much different if I am remembering correctly.  It could be that it would have spun a little more brand new, but he happened to have the best condition ones I have seen, so they could be somewhat representative.  Not conclusive by any means alone, but when combined with the fact that I have experience with them during my youth, and didn't find them any less straight off the driver than a rock flight, I am convinced they are not much different at all.

 

FYI, I grew up with a laminated driver, then tiny steel heads.  i remember what it was like.

Edited October 24, 2020 by clevited
Clarified

[clevited]

16 minutes ago, bscinstnct said:

 

Ya, think that’s the 975d. And believe he played a 43” steel shaft.

 

But, yeah, that’s the idea, just roll back the driver. 
 

It’s like MLB, the pros go old school. I mean, these are pros and they got Space Age composite toasters with all kinds of screws and gears and plugs and adjustments and 46”+ shafts?!

 

Its pretty idiotic if you think about it.

 

 

 

So  do you think that roughly 15 yard difference by rolling back driver will be enough to satisfy the USGA's problem statement regarding distance?

[Nard_S]

2 minutes ago, clevited said:

 

You have seen Shiels video right?  While i will say that a test with any wound ball, or really any ball of more than a few years old is rather invalid, you can learn some stuff.  Off the driver, the pro 90 spin and amount offline wasn't much if anything at all if I am remembering correctly.  It could be that it would have spun a little more brand new, but he happened to have the best condition ones I have seen, so they could be somewhat representative.  Not conclusive by any means alone, but I have said this before, I had found a few wound balls in my youth.  I didn't find them to be any worse off the tee with a driver.  it was with irons it was more spinny for me.  i wasn't good enough to want that spin back then.  They felt amazing though.

 

FYI, I grew up with a laminated driver, then tiny steel heads.  i remember what it was like.

Their not till you hit cross or upwind, off axis spin is higher and they are flat out less aerodynamic and are at greater mercy to the wind. They do not putt as true, new or not. They are maybe 5-7 yards shorter, but they are radially 5-10 greater on dispersion which means they don't really fly straight even with zero wind. I played  a several dozen of 20 year old Maxfli HT's a few years back. They worked fine but those are last generation (1999) wound balls which for the most part are half way to Pro V ball. Down wind they bomb. Older pre 1995 balata are more challenging and I do not miss them.

[storm319]

Just now, Nard_S said:

It's not the ball speed that is the difference but you would know that if you ever actually played them. That's exactly the problem. That's why I'm from Mars and you're from Venus.

Nostalgia is a lie. As clevited mentioned, the difference in spin with a modern driver is not as drastic as you think. Higher spin of the past was more influenced by the relatively high CG and more drastic bulge and roll of the typical persimmon driver of the time. 

[Nard_S]

1 minute ago, storm319 said:

Nostalgia is a lie. As clevited mentioned, the difference in spin with a modern driver is not as drastic as you think. Higher spin of the past was more influenced by the relatively high CG and more drastic bulge and roll of the typical persimmon driver of the time. 

Okay it's a lie, then let the Pro's tee up new Tour 100's. I'm in.

[Nard_S]

Throw in the persimmon too while were at it.

[bscinstnct]

18 minutes ago, clevited said:

 

So  do you think that roughly 15 yard difference by rolling back driver will be enough to satisfy the USGA's problem statement regarding distance?

Put it this way...what would happen if you put a small, steel head driver with a 43 inch steel shaft in Rory, BD, DJs hands?
 

What do you think the leaders would avarage? 300, maybe 305. 
 

That’s plenty and how it should be. 

 

Edited October 24, 2020 by bscinstnct

[Nard_S]

Folks sight Rick Shields, lol. How about Jack Nicklaus, Greg Norman, Tom Watson, Nick Faldo, Tiger & Louis O. What on Earth would they know about this stuff?

[storm319]

1 minute ago, Nard_S said:

Their not till you hit cross or upwind, off axis spin is higher and they are flat out less aerodynamic and are at greater mercy to the wind. They do not putt as true, new or not. They are maybe 5-7 yards shorter, but they are radially 5-10 greater on dispersion which means they don't really fly straight even with zero wind. I played  a several dozen of 20 year old Maxfli HT's a few years back. They worked fine but those are last generation (1999) wound balls which for the most part are half way to Pro V ball. Down wind they bomb. Older pre 1995 balata are more challenging and I do not miss them.

Spin axis is determined by the golfer, not the ball. Balls spin more or less around the axis based on delivery of the club (path, face angle, angle of attack), not inherently more or less in specific directions. 

 

4 minutes ago, Nard_S said:

Okay it's a lie, then let the Pro's tee up new Tour 100's. I'm in.

Luckily for us your approval isn’t necessary.

[Nard_S]

1 minute ago, storm319 said:

Spin axis is determined by the golfer, not the ball. Balls spin more or less around the axis based on delivery of the club (path, face angle, angle of attack), not inherently more or less in specific directions. 

 

Luckily for us your approval isn’t necessary.

You are not fully correct on this. How the ball is constructed is a factor. Less initial spin means less initial off axis spin. Modern ball has less initial to final spin ratio than old ball. Lucky for me, I actually played with this gear and didn't use to rick shields as a reference source.

[storm319]

1 minute ago, Nard_S said:

Folks sight Rick Shields, lol. How about Jack Nicklaus, Greg Norman, Tom Watson, Nick Faldo, Tiger & Louis O. What on Earth would they know about this stuff?

When those guys share objective comparisons and support data rather than subjective criticisms, then we can talk. Keep in mind that their predecessors had the similar criticisms during their primes.

[clevited]

11 minutes ago, bscinstnct said:

Put it this way...what would happen if you put a small, steel head driver with a 43 inch steel shaft in Rory, BD, DJs hands?
 

What do you think the leaders would avarage? 300, maybe 305. 
 

That’s plenty and how it should be. 

 

 

Well I honestly don't think 10 to 15 yards reduction even makes a dent in what the RBs want to accomplish but thats fine if you personally think that makes golf become what you want it to be.

[ThinkingPlus]

2 minutes ago, clevited said:

 

Well I honestly don't think 10 to 15 yards reduction even makes a dent in what the RBs want to accomplish but thats fine if you personally think that makes golf become what you want it to be.

See that's the awesome thing about an RB directed equipment rollback.  They will likely do enough to cause 99% of the amateur golf world to suffer while slightly inconveniencing the pros for a few years.  It's Groove Rule II which was the last time the RBs fixed the bomb and gouge scoring strategy issue.