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

[milesgiles]

14 hours ago, Shilgy said:

I can see them hit three woods a mile now. Why would a scaled back driver affect them enough to placate the rollback crowd?

 

What none of us rollbackers can understand is..

 

why would you not even TRY it. See what happens. Reset distance standards by any or all of the means discussed, to the pre 460cc era, and see what happens. Just for a couple of minor tournaments this winter. 

 

You barrelling on ‘it wouldn’t make a difference’ etc.. just TRY it. Who knows, you might get a Stenson Mcilroy Morikawa stripeshow coming down the stretch. You might enjoy it.

[clevited]

3 hours ago, milesgiles said:

 

What none of us rollbackers can understand is..

 

why would you not even TRY it. See what happens. Reset distance standards by any or all of the means discussed, to the pre 460cc era, and see what happens. Just for a couple of minor tournaments this winter. 

 

You barrelling on ‘it wouldn’t make a difference’ etc.. just TRY it. Who knows, you might get a Stenson Mcilroy Morikawa stripeshow coming down the stretch. You might enjoy it.

 

What is the point of trying something when the evolution of it is easily predicted.  Test it, test it throughly outside of the tour.  You won't learn anything meaningful from "testing it" a couple times on tour, I think I thoroughly debunked that several pages ago.

[bladehunter]

17 minutes ago, clevited said:

 

What is the point of trying something when the evolution of it is easily predicted.  Test it, test it throughly outside of the tour.  You won't learn anything meaningful from "testing it" a couple times on tour, I think I thoroughly debunked that several pages ago.

That’s a good point. Testing.  If we only had a trove of data to look at.  Hmmm 🤔 

 

but wait !  We do !  We can literally go back in time and pick a point to go back to.  

[milesgiles]

38 minutes ago, clevited said:

 

What is the point of trying something when the evolution of it is easily predicted.  Test it, test it throughly outside of the tour.  You won't learn anything meaningful from "testing it" a couple times on tour, I think I thoroughly debunked that several pages ago.

 

No, no I don’t think you did.

 

 

[smashdn]

18 hours ago, Bad9 said:

Bingo. The driver so many wAnt to see is the current 3w and the long guys are still up around 300yds.

 

That is kind of where I want to see them at.  300 is a long drive.  Occasionally, but not consistently, hit by only the longest players.

 

18 hours ago, bscinstnct said:

There you go. I don’t know what the people looking for a 20% rollback are thinking.

 

Id prefer to see the distance leaders back at 300 yards. Average drive say 285. But equally as importantly, less forgiveness on mishits, smaller sweet spot, greater risk of dispersion. 
 

What’s wrong with that?

 

Add some full swing spin back into the ball and I think that gets us to where I am thinking.

 

14 hours ago, disco111 said:

Apparently the standards have been eclipsed, other wise this distance discussion would not be taking place. The Masters may be the ice berg to this distance Titanic if Bryson uses the 48" driver and hits 400 yd bombs at will. You think we have a debate now! 

 

I don't know how many top level golf club engineers USGA and R&A have on staff.  I think it is plausible that the current equipment standards, then, were just not adequate or can be circumvented with other aspects of the club design.

 

For instance; I worked at a place that made a product that had to pass a UL test for heat in a certain place on the product.  The test required the spot to have a flat location for the thermocouple to attach.  We conveniently added in a stamped boss in that area to strengthen it.  And then we couldn't have that particular test applied to the product.

 

I'm not saying club companies are avoiding the testing, just that if you know how your product will be tested, you can evaluate and improve the performance while still passing the test.

[clevited]

24 minutes ago, bladehunter said:

That’s a good point. Testing.  If we only had a trove of data to look at.  Hmmm 🤔 

 

but wait !  We do !  We can literally go back in time and pick a point to go back to.  

 

No, no you can't.  What I see from Miles, and you and a few others is a desire to go back to a smaller head.  You have to "test" what the right balance is for small head if you want to quantify the solution appropriately.  You could just pick a size and do that, but I have seen some of you saying, 3/4 inch tee alone will naturally make the head get smaller such that it will fix the "problem".  I showed why that is very probably a big no.  Others say roll back to fairway head size.  Again, I have given evidence why that won't achieve the goal either.  Others yet say go back to the REALLY tiny heads.  That might achieve the goal it might not.  You have not quantified the abilities of today's tour players on average to play such a small club.  Instead of causing chaos for experimental reasons, why not, you know, test and experiment to find the right size.  Invite all tour players to participate in the testing.  Invite amateurs of all skill levels to test.  Do it in a controlled environment where you can actually systematically test it without messing with the tour.  Get the OEMs on board to design the best small headed drivers they can and test them thoroughly using both robots and players.

 

The idea of just throwing it on tour and see what happens 2 tournaments of the year will yield nothing but information on how it might maybe sort of possibly impact things short term.  I thought the idea was a long term solution.  How about we do this right and have an actual studied plan before pushing it on players and making them adapt on the fly for a couple tournaments a year. What actual testing before implementing will do is save a lot of unnecessary chaos, and reveal any problems with the idea, as well as allow the RBs plenty of time to come to a very balanced solution.  I would imagine a total package balanced solution might include a ball nerf, a driver cor nerf, a driver size nerf, a tee height nerf a length nerf, a weight limit, a MOI nerf, etc etc.

 

This is all of course me pretending any kind of change is needed, which we all know where I stand on that.

[clevited]

12 minutes ago, smashdn said:

 

That is kind of where I want to see them at.  300 is a long drive.  Occasionally, but not consistently, hit by only the longest players.

 

 

Add some full swing spin back into the ball and I think that gets us to where I am thinking.

 

 

I don't know how many top level golf club engineers USGA and R&A have on staff.  I think it is plausible that the current equipment standards, then, were just not adequate or can be circumvented with other aspects of the club design.

 

For instance; I worked at a place that made a product that had to pass a UL test for heat in a certain place on the product.  The test required the spot to have a flat location for the thermocouple to attach.  We conveniently added in a stamped boss in that area to strengthen it.  And then we couldn't have that particular test applied to the product.

 

I'm not saying club companies are avoiding the testing, just that if you know how your product will be tested, you can evaluate and improve the performance while still passing the test.

 

This is something I have tried to reiterate on these threads a lot.  I do so by saying that the RBs should be forward thinking and limiting the things that they are ignoring.  They should be, if they aren't, testing the impact of clubs getting lighter and lighter.  They should assume graphite shafts will get stronger and lighter, why didn't they put a limit at like 80 grams a long time ago?  Why didn't they put a very tight limit on driver head weight?  Why not dictate a weight each club needs to be at max or min?  Why don't they specify grip weight limits?  Why don't they specify how large the sweet spot can be?  

 

Why did they miss the boat on all that stuff that was happening over the course of the last 20 years?  

 

Why are they still missing the boat on this kind of stuff?  They are spending money on ball research that they are probably not even going to use to do anything, or if they do, botch it.  That is why.

[Sean2]

20 hours ago, milesgiles said:

 

Short game skills are independent of the rest of the game though. We could/would have had more challenging greens regardless of toasters on a stick.

danger zone has always distinguished better players. 100 years ago as well I’m sure

The thing about developing a good short game is you don't need to be young or athletic to develop one. 

[milesgiles]

10 minutes ago, clevited said:

 

No, no you can't.  What I see from Miles, and you and a few others is a desire to go back to a smaller head.  You have to "test" what the right balance is for small head if you want to quantify the solution appropriately.  You could just pick a size and do that, but I have seen some of you saying, 3/4 inch tee alone will naturally make the head get smaller such that it will fix the "problem".  I showed why that is very probably a big no.  Others say roll back to fairway head size.  Again, I have given evidence why that won't achieve the goal either.  Others yet say go back to the REALLY tiny heads.  That might achieve the goal it might not.  You have not quantified the abilities of today's tour players on average to play such a small club.  Instead of causing chaos for experimental reasons, why not, you know, test and experiment to find the right size.  Invite all tour players to participate in the testing.  Invite amateurs of all skill levels to test.  Do it in a controlled environment where you can actually systematically test it without messing with the tour.  Get the OEMs on board to design the best small headed drivers they can and test them thoroughly using both robots and players.

 

The idea of just throwing it on tour and see what happens 2 tournaments of the year will yield nothing but information on how it might maybe sort of possibly impact things short term.  I thought the idea was a long term solution.  How about we do this right and have an actual studied plan before pushing it on players and making them adapt on the fly for a couple tournaments a year. What actual testing before implementing will do is save a lot of unnecessary chaos, and reveal any problems with the idea, as well as allow the RBs plenty of time to come to a very balanced solution.  I would imagine a total package balanced solution might include a ball nerf, a driver cor nerf, a driver size nerf, a tee height nerf a length nerf, a weight limit, a MOI nerf, etc etc.

 

This is all of course me pretending any kind of change is needed, which we all know where I stand on that.

 

What a load of unnecessary faff.

 

believe it or not hardly anyone cares about results of tournaments that aren’t majors. And certainly not in January. What are you testing in a lab? It needs to be done with money and livelihoods on the line. We already know what a short tee does, what a lower CoR does etc. Let’s see th real world results of needing to find the 18th fairway to win without a toaster on a stick 

[clevited]

18 minutes ago, milesgiles said:

 

What a load of unnecessary faff.

 

believe it or not hardly anyone cares about results of tournaments that aren’t majors. And certainly not in January. What are you testing in a lab? It needs to be done with money and livelihoods on the line. We already know what a short tee does, what a lower CoR does etc. Let’s see th real world results of needing to find the 18th fairway to win without a toaster on a stick 

 

I feel like you don't quite see the big picture.  The RBs have a clear goal.  Why in the world would you implement something by firing from the hip rather than deduce if it will actually make the impact you desire or not?  Why in the world wouldn't you give players time to learn to adapt to the new rules rather than throw them to the fire, even if only for 2 tournaments.  What do you hope to learn from that?  You won't learn anything for the long term goal.  You only learn for the short term do you not?  

You have to quantify how much roll back satisfies the goal.  Some of you say 300 max for the longest hitter is the goal of such rule changes.  Well then....

 

Bryson has demonstrated the ability to hit 200 mph ball speed.  200 mph ball speed equates to roughly 340 yard carries when carry is maximized.  To get Bryson down to 300 max (carry only, not even talking total), we are talking 12% roll back.  If you give him 20 yards of roll per drive (which is pretty common) then he is 360 total and you would need to nerf equipment 17%.

 

This isn't even the maximum a future tour pro would be capable of, and it isn't the maximum of Bryson.  He can hit ball speeds over 200 mph.

 

You would have to thoroughly test what the correct balance would be to accomplish the goal.  I don't think repeating the groove rule or anchored putters rule again is going to be effective or well received. Even when its a negative rule change, I think most people appreciate a well thought out and thoroughly tested solution.

Edited November 2, 2020 by clevited

[milesgiles]

I don’t think not letting them use a toaster on a stick designed for an 80 year old is ‘throwing them in the fire’. You keep telling everyone how good they are.. 

 

couldnt care less how far Bryson or anyone else hits it, as long as the equipment is broadly comparable to 30 years ago. If he works out how to carry it 300 plus with nerfed regulations, more power to him. Long and straight has always been rewarded 

[bladehunter]

45 minutes ago, clevited said:

 

No, no you can't.  What I see from Miles, and you and a few others is a desire to go back to a smaller head.  You have to "test" what the right balance is for small head if you want to quantify the solution appropriately.  You could just pick a size and do that, but I have seen some of you saying, 3/4 inch tee alone will naturally make the head get smaller such that it will fix the "problem".  I showed why that is very probably a big no.  Others say roll back to fairway head size.  Again, I have given evidence why that won't achieve the goal either.  Others yet say go back to the REALLY tiny heads.  That might achieve the goal it might not.  You have not quantified the abilities of today's tour players on average to play such a small club.  Instead of causing chaos for experimental reasons, why not, you know, test and experiment to find the right size.  Invite all tour players to participate in the testing.  Invite amateurs of all skill levels to test.  Do it in a controlled environment where you can actually systematically test it without messing with the tour.  Get the OEMs on board to design the best small headed drivers they can and test them thoroughly using both robots and players.

 

The idea of just throwing it on tour and see what happens 2 tournaments of the year will yield nothing but information on how it might maybe sort of possibly impact things short term.  I thought the idea was a long term solution.  How about we do this right and have an actual studied plan before pushing it on players and making them adapt on the fly for a couple tournaments a year. What actual testing before implementing will do is save a lot of unnecessary chaos, and reveal any problems with the idea, as well as allow the RBs plenty of time to come to a very balanced solution.  I would imagine a total package balanced solution might include a ball nerf, a driver cor nerf, a driver size nerf, a tee height nerf a length nerf, a weight limit, a MOI nerf, etc etc.

 

This is all of course me pretending any kind of change is needed, which we all know where I stand on that.

So we couldn’t adopt a steel shaft and 975d and accurately predict the outcome ? 
 

real question.  I don’t understand that.  This idea that today’s human is somehow superior to the human of 1980 is a flawed idea.  The club is allowing the human to bring the speed.  It’s the conduit.  Restrict the size of the conduit and the flow of speed will slow down in favor of scoring.  Scoring will always win.  The current driver and ball allows better scoring swinging harder and missing the middle more.  
 

( 975d is purely an example. I have no idea of that’s rolled back far enough ). 

Edited November 2, 2020 by bladehunter

[NRJyzr]

56 minutes ago, clevited said:

 

No, no you can't.  What I see from Miles, and you and a few others is a desire to go back to a smaller head.  You have to "test" what the right balance is for small head if you want to quantify the solution appropriately.  You could just pick a size and do that, but I have seen some of you saying, 3/4 inch tee alone will naturally make the head get smaller such that it will fix the "problem".  I showed why that is very probably a big no.  Others say roll back to fairway head size.  Again, I have given evidence why that won't achieve the goal either.  Others yet say go back to the REALLY tiny heads.  That might achieve the goal it might not.  You have not quantified the abilities of today's tour players on average to play such a small club.  Instead of causing chaos for experimental reasons, why not, you know, test and experiment to find the right size.  Invite all tour players to participate in the testing.  Invite amateurs of all skill levels to test.  Do it in a controlled environment where you can actually systematically test it without messing with the tour.  Get the OEMs on board to design the best small headed drivers they can and test them thoroughly using both robots and players.

 

The idea of just throwing it on tour and see what happens 2 tournaments of the year will yield nothing but information on how it might maybe sort of possibly impact things short term.  I thought the idea was a long term solution.  How about we do this right and have an actual studied plan before pushing it on players and making them adapt on the fly for a couple tournaments a year. What actual testing before implementing will do is save a lot of unnecessary chaos, and reveal any problems with the idea, as well as allow the RBs plenty of time to come to a very balanced solution.  I would imagine a total package balanced solution might include a ball nerf, a driver cor nerf, a driver size nerf, a tee height nerf a length nerf, a weight limit, a MOI nerf, etc etc.

 

This is all of course me pretending any kind of change is needed, which we all know where I stand on that.

 

Just chiming in, since I'm one of those who suggested a smaller clubhead.  I'm *not* in favor of the tee length suggestion, though.

 

My interest in a smaller clubhead is purely borne of MOI.  I firmly believe the absurd MOI levels we see possible in drivers on the current market has taken some level of skill out of the tee game. 

 

Where it gets more interesting, from my perspective anyway....  The Tour players largely avoided the SLDR.  It was 460cc, but the MOI was around 3200 gm/cm2.  The noise bandied about the forums was that they didn't put it in the bag due to an inability to control the driver as they may have wished, in spite of the absurd distance ability available with it due to the much lower spin.

 

The spin was often mentioned as a possible reason, but it seems more obvious to me that MOI is the culprit.  There have been plenty of observations over the years of the effect of high MOI in irons, including the famous Faldo-Eye2 round.  I've seen it myself, even balata flies straighter with higher MOI irons than with lower MOI blades.

 

Lower the MOI and you re-introduce a bit more skill into the tee game.  You actually wouldn't need to reduce the size of the clubheads, unless you go much lower than the SLDR's 3200.

 

Some (much?) of this is a repeat, but isn't that what we do here?   LOL

 

edited to add:  I am not a rollback guy.  I do not like the idea of arbitrarily setting a distance limit based on the efforts of players of the past who swung slower than I do even at age 57.

 

Edited November 2, 2020 by NRJyzr

[clevited]

5 minutes ago, bladehunter said:

So we couldn’t adopt a steel shaft and 975d and accurately predict the outcome ? 
 

real question.  I don’t understand that.  This idea that today’s human is somehow superior to the human of 1980 is a flawed idea.  The club is allowing the human to bring the speed.  It’s the conduit.  Restrict the size of the conduit and the flow of speed will slow down in favor of scoring.  Scoring will always win.  The current driver and ball allows better scoring swinging harder and missing the middle more.  
 

( 975d is purely an example. I have no idea of that’s rolled back far enough ). 

 

No you can't.  That is just firing from the hip and guessing and thinking that it will take care of the "problem" without first quantifying what exactly you need.  Is it a straight up distance roll back the RBs desire?  Do they think it is best solved with more difficult to hit equipment?  Do they think it is a combination?  

 

They would need to test this, come to a reasonable conclusion and implement it over time.  I think that is the smartest, and most responsible way to do it.

 

Btw, your 975D idea.  You act as if clubs are going to remain static at that exact design.  You can shrink a head down to that size and add a steel shaft and I would bet you a large amount of money that wouldn't even come close to solving anything.

 

Quantify the total weight of the club, quantify the COR, quantify the maximum sweet spot size in square mm, quantify the MOI such that the club is as minimally forgiving as desired, etc etc etc.  Test the crap out of it, find the new limits that rules will need to change to, to govern future club design and then slowly implement it.  I feel like that is logical and wise, especially given the equipment rule changes in the past.

[bladehunter]

Just now, clevited said:

 

No you can't.  That is just firing from the hip and guessing and thinking that it will take care of the "problem" without first quantifying what exactly you need.  Is it a straight up distance roll back the RBs desire?  Do they think it is best solved with more difficult to hit equipment?  Do they think it is a combination?  

 

They would need to test this, come to a reasonable conclusion and implement it over time.  I think that is the smartest, and most responsible way to do it.

 

Btw, your 975D idea.  You act as if clubs are going to remain static at that exact design.  You can shrink a head down to that size and add a steel shaft and I would bet you a large amount of money that wouldn't even come close to solving anything.

 

Quantify the total weight of the club, quantify the COR, quantify the maximum sweet spot size in square mm, quantify the MOI such that the club is as minimally forgiving as desired, etc etc etc.  Test the crap out of it, find the new limits that rules will need to change to, to govern future club design and then slowly implement it.  I feel like that is logical and wise, especially given the equipment rule changes in the past.

You’re just stonewalling and making this I seem like a harder thing than it is.  Red tape killing of an idea.  Lol. 
 

 

we literally  know how it will preform. We know it. It will spin more.  Why ?  You can’t move weight far enough down and back.  It will thus launch higher.  So low lofts will be popular again.  
 

we can set CT where it needs to be for the desired carry. Already a known thing with the current robot testing.  And shaft length can be cut back.   Then the 3 wood issue takes care of itself.  They’ll shrink due to carry overlap with drivers coming back.  When they shrink they get harder to hit.  Easy. This is not new ground. 

[clevited]

4 minutes ago, NRJyzr said:

 

Just chiming in, since I'm one of those who suggested a smaller clubhead.  I'm *not* in favor of the tee length suggestion, though.

 

My interest in a smaller clubhead is purely borne of MOI.  I firmly believe the absurd MOI levels we see possible in drivers on the current market has taken some level of skill out of the tee game. 

 

Where it gets more interesting, from my perspective anyway....  The Tour players largely avoided the SLDR.  It was 460cc, but the MOI was around 3200 gm/cm2.  The noise bandied about the forums was that they didn't put it in the bag due to an inability to control the driver as they may have wished, in spite of the absurd distance ability available with it due to the much lower spin.

 

The spin was often mentioned as a possible reason, but it seems more obvious to me that MOI is the culprit.  There have been plenty of observations over the years of the effect of high MOI in irons, including the famous Faldo-Eye2 round.  I've seen it myself, even balata flies straighter with higher MOI irons than with lower MOI blades.

 

Lower the MOI and you re-introduce a bit more skill into the tee game.  You actually wouldn't need to reduce the size of the clubheads, unless you go much lower than the SLDR's 3200.

 

Some (much?) of this is a repeat, but isn't that what we do here?   LOL

 

edited to add:  I am not a rollback guy.  I do not like the idea of arbitrarily setting a distance limit based on the efforts of players of the past who swung slower than I do even at age 57.

 

 

Good post. To me, that would all be determined through the internal testing I suggested.  I just don't think it is wise, to just throw it on tour and see what happens, not that you are suggesting that.

[NRJyzr]

5 minutes ago, bladehunter said:

You’re just stonewalling and making this I seem like a harder thing than it is.  Red tape killing of an idea.  Lol. 
 

 

we literally  know how it will preform. We know it. It will spin more.  Why ?  You can’t move weight far enough down and back.  It will thus launch higher.  So low lofts will be popular again.  
 

we can set CT where it needs to be for the desired carry. Already a known thing with the current robot testing.  And shaft length can be cut back.   Then the 3 wood issue takes care of itself.  They’ll shrink due to carry overlap with drivers coming back.  When they shrink they get harder to hit.  Easy. This is not new ground. 

 

I don't think he is, BH.  If I'm reading it correctly, he's suggesting you actually study the idea with actual scientific effort.  Isolate variables so you don't wind up with unintended and unforeseen consequences.

 

That's how I'm reading it, anyway.

 

Their previous efforts were *not* done that way, and look what's happened.  Groove rule was all about nothing, except maybe forcing people to acquire new clubs.  Anchoring ban was stupid to begin with, and not well executed.  They didn't even do the COR rule decently.

 

Edited November 2, 2020 by NRJyzr

[clevited]

8 minutes ago, bladehunter said:

You’re just stonewalling and making this I seem like a harder thing than it is.  Red tape killing of an idea.  Lol. 
 

 

we literally  know how it will preform. We know it. It will spin more.  Why ?  You can’t move weight far enough down and back.  It will thus launch higher.  So low lofts will be popular again.  
 

we can set CT where it needs to be for the desired carry. Already a known thing with the current robot testing.  And shaft length can be cut back.   Then the 3 wood issue takes care of itself.  They’ll shrink due to carry overlap with drivers coming back.  When they shrink they get harder to hit.  Easy. This is not new ground. 

 

No I am not stonewalling.  If you want to solve a problem right, go about it the right way.  It isn't like an immediate change is needed, the RBs have all the time in the world to research and find a balanced/best solution since they are already late to the party by like 20 years.  More if you are named Jack.

 

You have an idea about what will solve the problem, another guy has a different one, yet another guy has another different solution.  Do you see the problem?  You all have similar but different solutions.  How about you test it first thoroughly and decide if one is better than the others or if some combination of ideas is best.  It is just plane reckless I think to push so hard for it to just be thrown on tour and see what happens.  You don't seem to think about the long term, or the changes in design that manufacturers will implement to combat such a change, etc etc.  Lighter steels, bigger sweet spots in a small head, changes in club delivery.

 

 

Edited November 2, 2020 by clevited

[clevited]

4 minutes ago, NRJyzr said:

 

I don't think he is, BH.  If I'm reading it correctly, he's suggesting you actually study the idea with actual scientific effort.  Isolate variables so you don't wind up with unintended and unforeseen consequences.

 

That's how I'm reading it, anyway.

 

Their previous efforts were *not* done that way, and look what's happened.  Groove rule was all about nothing, except maybe forcing people to acquire new clubs.  Anchoring ban was stupid to begin with, and not well executed.  They didn't even do the COR rule decently.

 

 

Thank you.  Yes that is exactly what I am trying to say, thought it was obvious but hopefully you have cleared that up for him and others. 

[Bubbtubbs]

9 minutes ago, bladehunter said:

You’re just stonewalling and making this I seem like a harder thing than it is.  Red tape killing of an idea.  Lol. 
 

 

we literally  know how it will preform. We know it. It will spin more.  Why ?  You can’t move weight far enough down and back.  It will thus launch higher.  So low lofts will be popular again.  
 

we can set CT where it needs to be for the desired carry. Already a known thing with the current robot testing.  And shaft length can be cut back.   Then the 3 wood issue takes care of itself.  They’ll shrink due to carry overlap with drivers coming back.  When they shrink they get harder to hit.  Easy. This is not new ground. 

I'm not sure that he is. He's pretty much describing the scientific method: isolating variables and testing their effects while keeping others as constant as possible.

 

I'm not sure how else you solve the problem properly? (if you're on the side of there being a problem, that is)

[bladehunter]

7 minutes ago, clevited said:

 

No I am not stonewalling.  If you want to solve a problem right, go about it the right way.  It isn't like an immediate change is needed, the RBs have all the time in the world to research and find a balanced/best solution since they are already late to the party by like 20 years.  More if you are named Jack.

 

You have an idea about what will solve the problem, another guy has a different one, yet another guy has another different solution.  Do you see the problem?  You all have similar but different solutions.  How about you test it first thoroughly and decide if one is better than the others or if some combination of ideas is best.  It is just plane reckless I think to push so hard for it to just be thrown on tour and see what happens.  You don't seem to think about the long term, or the changes in design that manufacturers will implement to combat such a change, etc etc.  Lighter steels, bigger sweet spots in a small head, changes in club delivery.

 

 

Provided we test this inside say 6 months. Fine. Doesn’t bother me to test , might show that we need to go back farther than I think.   
 

If that’s the goal fine.  But just saying it can’t be done due to a need for a 10 year study isn’t a genuine point.  So if that’s not what you’re saying then I apologize....but the data can easily be had. 

[clevited]

1 minute ago, bladehunter said:

Provided we test this inside say 6 months. Fine. Doesn’t bother me to test , might show that we need to go back farther than I think.   
 

If that’s the goal fine.  But just saying it can’t be done due to a need for a 10 year study isn’t a genuine point.  So if that’s not what you’re saying then I apologize....but the data can easily be had. 

 

Why rush something so big?  It has been delayed for years already, take the time and do it right whether that be 6 months or 10 years.  I don't know how long it would take.  I think OEMs need to throw their best designs at fighting some proposed rule changes as part of the research and that could take much more than 6 months.  The length of time it takes is irrelevant imo.  

 

Remember, I don't want them to do anything.  I think it is a waste of time and money and I truly believe any solution would be very large and be too negative for the masses that play the game.  I rather them just try to find any loopholes in their existing limits but primarily, I would like them to pour money into changing the image of the game and finding a way to get more kids to give it a shot.  Tiger made it cool and lots of people took up the sport imo.  Make golf cool again.  That is a whole other subject of which I have tons of ideas and thoughts on though.

[bladehunter]

17 minutes ago, NRJyzr said:

 

I don't think he is, BH.  If I'm reading it correctly, he's suggesting you actually study the idea with actual scientific effort.  Isolate variables so you don't wind up with unintended and unforeseen consequences.

 

That's how I'm reading it, anyway.

 

Their previous efforts were *not* done that way, and look what's happened.  Groove rule was all about nothing, except maybe forcing people to acquire new clubs.  Anchoring ban was stupid to begin with, and not well executed.  They didn't even do the COR rule decently.

 

I understand what you’re saying. But each of those issues were toothless due to not going far enough.  With grooves. The issue is the ball and driver. Period.  It’s not that the grooves were too sharp. It’s that they are too close to the greens. And the anchor ban was just a limp wristed effort.  Either ban the long putter or dont.  Not half way.  And I’m ok with either way. Just not the middle.  But I don’t see how you test  that. 
 

And leave armlock? .  Which if done correctly is locked in.  I know.  It absolutely makes for a perfect stroke on any putt monitoring machine.  Once someone perfects  their fitment etc.  which is the idea of anchoring. A repeatable stroke with no real variables.  Armlock will provide that at least closer than a long putter ever could.  

[bladehunter]

6 minutes ago, clevited said:

 

Why rush something so big?  It has been delayed for years already, take the time and do it right whether that be 6 months or 10 years.  I don't know how long it would take.  I think OEMs need to throw their best designs at fighting some proposed rule changes as part of the research and that could take much more than 6 months.  The length of time it takes is irrelevant imo.  

 

Remember, I don't want them to do anything.  I think it is a waste of time and money and I truly believe any solution would be very large and be too negative for the masses that play the game.  I rather them just try to find any loopholes in their existing limits but primarily, I would like them to pour money into changing the image of the game and finding a way to get more kids to give it a shot.  Tiger made it cool and lots of people took up the sport imo.  Make golf cool again.  That is a whole other subject of which I have tons of ideas and thoughts on though.

Lol 6 months is a rush ?  You’re back to the “ cabbage inspection “ tactic.  If you leave the cabbage on the boat at port long enough - there ain’t nothing left to inspect. Problem solved.  
 

 

if this isn’t fixed quick enough it’s pointless- the game is gone.  

[clevited]

2 minutes ago, bladehunter said:

Lol 6 months is a rush ?  You’re back to the “ cabbage inspection “ tactic.  If you leave the cabbage on the boat at port long enough - there ain’t nothing left to inspect. Problem solved.  
 

 

if this isn’t fixed quick enough it’s pointless- the game is gone.  

 

I have no tactic, I simply believe if you want to do something, do it RIGHT.  That is all.  How in the world will the game be gone btw? That is quite the doom and gloom speak and not backed up with any evidence that I have seen at least.

[bladehunter]

12 minutes ago, clevited said:

 

Why rush something so big?  It has been delayed for years already, take the time and do it right whether that be 6 months or 10 years.  I don't know how long it would take.  I think OEMs need to throw their best designs at fighting some proposed rule changes as part of the research and that could take much more than 6 months.  The length of time it takes is irrelevant imo.  

 

Remember, I don't want them to do anything.  I think it is a waste of time and money and I truly believe any solution would be very large and be too negative for the masses that play the game.  I rather them just try to find any loopholes in their existing limits but primarily, I would like them to pour money into changing the image of the game and finding a way to get more kids to give it a shot.  Tiger made it cool and lots of people took up the sport imo.  Make golf cool again.  That is a whole other subject of which I have tons of ideas and thoughts on though.

Forgot to add. The game is fine from the kids standpoint.  I have a 12 year old now who has played since around age 6.  But I haven’t pushed him.  He’s played pga junior league etc. but then lost interest due to frustrating results around a year and half ago.  Then two months ago he picks up his pitching wedge while stuck at home. Goes out back and hooks himself.  He’s hit balls everyday since then.  He’s always hit it well.  But now he’s hooked himself.  
 

you see. This game requires someone to be a self starter.  There isn’t a team to lean on. You get in what you put out.  And I knew he’d either get it or not.  You’re competing with the internet , video games etc with today’s kid.  Short of going back to a non internet world ( which I’m in favor of ) you can’t change that.   So you won’t get kids in unless they’re introduced organically like mine. There is no way to do it.  
 

but having seen alll the programs out there I’d say it’s 20X bettter than whne I was a kid.  We are far from even upper middle class and my kid has played some of the most prestigious clubs in SC through the first tee and pga junior league.  There are great pathways that any kid can go if they choose.  

[smashdn]

1 hour ago, clevited said:

 

This is something I have tried to reiterate on these threads a lot.  I do so by saying that the RBs should be forward thinking and limiting the things that they are ignoring.  They should be, if they aren't, testing the impact of clubs getting lighter and lighter.  They should assume graphite shafts will get stronger and lighter, why didn't they put a limit at like 80 grams a long time ago?  Why didn't they put a very tight limit on driver head weight?  Why not dictate a weight each club needs to be at max or min?  Why don't they specify grip weight limits?  Why don't they specify how large the sweet spot can be?  

 

Why did they miss the boat on all that stuff that was happening over the course of the last 20 years?  

 

Why are they still missing the boat on this kind of stuff?  They are spending money on ball research that they are probably not even going to use to do anything, or if they do, botch it.  That is why.

 

 

Good points.  About the only thing I can come up with is that they never really had to before.  Both ruling bodies were pretty hands off (historically) when it came to clubs.  Nothing is really standardized.  You could say the ball is, but really just the diameter and maybe a few other parameters.  All of it is very personal.  And up to 30 years ago was very simplistic.  I just don't think they have caught up.  Now they not only need to get caught up but get out in front of it.  I don't think they can.

 

A wilson 8802 and a SC Futura are both legal to use.  You can use hickory shafts or graphite and be legal.

Edited November 2, 2020 by smashdn

[clevited]

2 minutes ago, bladehunter said:

Forgot to add. The game is fine from the kids standpoint.  I have a 12 year old now who has played since around age 6.  But I haven’t pushed him.  He’s played pga junior league etc. but then lost interest due to frustrating results around a year and half ago.  Then two months ago he picks up his pitching wedge while stuck at home. Goes out back and hooks himself.  He’s hit balls everyday since then.  He’s always hit it well.  But now he’s hooked himself.  
 

you see. This game requires someone to be a self starter.  There isn’t a team to lean on. You get in what you put out.  And I knew he’d either get it or not.  You’re competing with the internet , video games etc with today’s kid.  Short of going back to a non internet world ( which I’m in favor of ) you can’t change that.   So you won’t get kids in unless they’re introduced organically like mine. There is no way to do it.  
 

but having seen alll the programs out there I’d say it’s 20X bettter than whne I was a kid.  We are far from even upper middle class and my kid has played some of the most prestigious clubs in SC through the first tee and pga junior league.  There are great pathways that any kid can go if they choose.  

 

I think golf is a game that if you just get the opportunity to try it, you either love it or hate it.  If you are a golfer with kids, well it is easy to give them the opportunity.  It is the non golfer families that need more access.  I always thought that if golf made its way into grade school gym class for a few days a year, that would go huge lengths to promote the sport and allow kids to at least have a taste of it.

[NRJyzr]

1 minute ago, bladehunter said:

I understand what you’re saying. But each of those issues were toothless due to not going far enough.  With grooves. The issue is the ball and driver. Period.  It’s not that the grooves were too sharp. It’s that they are too close to the greens. And the anchor ban was just a limp wristed effort.  Either ban the long putter or dont.  Not half way.  And I’m ok with either way. Just not the middle.  But I don’t see how you test  that. 
 

And leave armlock? .  Which if done correctly is locked in.  I know.  It absolutely makes for a perfect stroke on any putt monitoring machine.  Once someone perfects  their fitment etc.  which is the idea of anchoring. A repeatable stroke with no real variables.  Armlock will provide that at least closer than a long putter ever could.  

 

Completely disagree that the problem, as you say, has anything to do with the ball.  The ball has been capped for several decades.  The early ball tests show there wasn't much difference in 2001 between wound and solid core.  After all the worry about the new balls being hotter for higher speeds, they made the change to ODS, using 120mph clubhead speed.  And actually rolled the ball back (albeit slightly) in the process.

 

They're not magically hotter now than they were.

 

Most who point at the ball look at 1980s driving distance stats, and ignore the obvious variable of the speed of the players involved.  How many have hit wound balls with modern sticks?  

 

Which brings us to another reason behind my viewpoint.  I've hit wound balls relatively recently, with Ti.  With wood.  In comparison with solid core balls, also hit with Ti.  And with wood.  As someone who, at the time, had swingspeed that would place me midpoint for a Tour player (speed only, not overall ability).  The difference was not profound, a half dozen yards.  Sometimes not even that.

 

Add it all up, and it's not the ball.

 

[bladehunter]

3 minutes ago, clevited said:

 

I have no tactic, I simply believe if you want to do something, do it RIGHT.  That is all.  How in the world will the game be gone btw? That is quite the doom and gloom speak and not backed up with any evidence that I have seen at least.

It just depends on you’re idea of “ the game “. We may already be past that point.   I can list the ways. But you’ll simply explain them away as “ progress “ or “ the old ways are dying and that’s good “. 
 

which is fine. I’m cool with someone disagreeing.  I just  think  that my ideas of what’s correct should be treated the same. After all it’s all OPINION  on how a game should be played.  Progress for sake of progress is rarely correct long term. 
 

uou feel like you have the moral high ground because you’re defending the current situation.  I feel that way because  I’m advocating for a change back to FIX an issue that I have with the new game.  It’s that easy.  Neither of us are on rock solid ground , because we both have selfish agendas.  Both.