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

[ThinkingPlus]

21 minutes ago, smashdn said:

 

If the specs were made that way sure, why not?  If you want to go down the WWKBD (what would Kyle Berkshire do) route I am out.

 

Louisville Golf makes modern persimmon now.  Dave Woods Kool Kat driver was a "modern" hollow persimmon.  That club addressed the inherent issue with persimmon wood heads, weight.  Theoretically you could make a 460 cc persimmon driver head that would be just as forgiving (not as hot though) as a modern driver (taking the ability to move COG out of the equation), it would just weigh more than what you could swing.  You had to be a big man to swing an LFF back in the day.

 

With lightweight materials you can go big and still be light.  With super lightweight materials you can go big and have extra weight(s) to position where you want to move COG.  The modern equivalent to the lead plug epoxied under the sole plate.

 

I can't help you with the balls though.  The main gripes were that balata went out of round, the covers weren't durable and they spun too much (off the driver) for average players to manage.  I think the ball manufacturers have it well in hand to produce a ball that; stays round, covers that resist splitting, and they tell us they can manipulate spin of the ball based upon which layer of the core you compress.

You sort of made my point.  A modern treatment of a balata ball and persimmon driver will perform better than what everyone recalls from 30 odd years ago.  Many of the shortcomings of that equipment may have been manufacturing related or design related that would be fixed if performance replication wasn't mandated.

[smashdn]

I wouldn't have a problem with an "improved" version of persimmon, provided it accomplished the end goal I have in mind, around 300 yards being a "long" drive chief among them.  Mold the specs of whatever you want the driver to be around that.

 

Start with the end goal and work backwards.  Don't start with the specs and then find they don't accomplish the end goal.

 

What if they rolled out an iron byron and had it strike the ball with the club face 2* open at a set speed, and then measured the amount of offline spin and created a standard to ensure balls spun sufficiently?  That is a performance standard not a specification.

^Something like that.

Edited November 4, 2020 by smashdn

[clevited]

14 minutes ago, bladehunter said:

Sure I do.  Alot of time it’s spin.  
 

some irons have more grooves.  More spin. Some fairway heads are smaller.  More spin , more maneuverable. Some drivers are smaller and/or deeper faced.  Weight more forward.  Less spin.  
 

balls are vArying reasons.  Usually spin. 
 

this is why I didn’t quote the ignorance that is the idea that tour players clubs are hotter.
 The point is that a tour version driver and 3 wood for each oem could be done and go virtually unnoticed by 90 % of the ignorant playing public.  It’s done now for different reasons.  

 

I will admit it isn't easy to prove in an online forum, and choose to ignore or not believe me all you want, but I KNOW for a fact, that none of that is true to any meaningful degree when compared to currently available equipment.

[clevited]

11 minutes ago, milesgiles said:

 

Yes I do. Put it this way, if you can’t hit a 460, you can’t hit anything at all. Never seen an exception to that rule.

 

dont know (or care) what I’ve misrepresented. Perhaps you don’t express yourself clearly 

 

1) You are generalizing again, and what you say isn't even close to true and you know it.  Define can't hit?  Sure, most people don't wiff with one, I will give you that, but if you think for a minute everyone is hitting it straight or in the air or consistently just because it is big, you are sadly mistaken.  I observe that people have an immeasurably easier time hitting mid irons, hybrids,  fairway woods, wedges and putters easier than a driver.  Precisely because it is longer than all clubs, and lower lofted.

 

2) If you are a decent human being, you should care what you misrepresented.   Stop looking at me as your enemy that you have to try and thwart any chance you think you can.  Look at me as a colleague that shares a love for the same sport you do and we will have a much more productive conversation. 

[milesgiles]

28 minutes ago, clevited said:

 

1) You are generalizing again, and what you say isn't even close to true and you know it.  Define can't hit?  Sure, most people don't wiff with one, I will give you that, but if you think for a minute everyone is hitting it straight or in the air or consistently just because it is big, you are sadly mistaken.  I observe that people have an immeasurably easier time hitting mid irons, hybrids,  fairway woods, wedges and putters easier than a driver.  Precisely because it is longer than all clubs, and lower lofted.

 

2) If you are a decent human being, you should care what you misrepresented.   Stop looking at me as your enemy that you have to try and thwart any chance you think you can.  Look at me as a colleague that shares a love for the same sport you do and we will have a much more productive conversation. 

 

1. Never seen or played with this unicorn 

 

2. You aren’t remotely interested in anyone else’s viewpoint other than your own. Claiming you’ve ‘proved’ this, that and the other, as you’ve done at least twice in the last two days, when all you’ve done is presented highly debatable evidence/conjecture, is a poor standpoint for trying to entertain anyone else’s opinion 

Edited November 4, 2020 by milesgiles

[clevited]

7 minutes ago, milesgiles said:

 

1. Never seen or played with this unicorn 

 

2. You aren’t remotely interested in anyone else’s viewpoint other than your own. Claiming you’ve ‘proved’ this, that and the other, as you’ve done at least twice in the last two days, when all you’ve done is presented highly debatable evidence/conjecture, is a poor standpoint for trying to entertain anyone else’s point of view. 

 

I am interested in well thought out arguments for a roll back, and what that would entail.  So far, what people have mentioned has been rather disappointing from a discussion standpoint.  Just a lot of subjective/generalized posts such as yours.  I have at least tried to lay out my thought process behind my point of view.  So far, nobody has presented anything new or thought provoking vs threads of the past.

[Soloman1]

The materials used for woods and balls are irrelevant, it's the performance.

Smaller heads - maybe 200-250cc, COR of 0.075.

Higher spin ball that would be ~1,000 rpm more with Driver through 9-iron, Wedge at ~2,000 rpm more.

 

 

[disco111]

I've attempted to add a little humor with a couple of posts, but perhaps it's time to get seriously objective. I think it's time to remove the possibility of rolling back anything and focus on the glaring problem of...............Do they allow further distance increases from equipment refinements?   

[bscinstnct]

Here is Rory Mcilroy,

 

“A lot of the stuff about the ball going too far and technology, it really pertains to 0.1 per cent of golfers out there,” McIlroy said.

 

“So if they want to try to contain what we do, as touring professionals, I’m all for that.

 

Selfishly I think that’s only a good thing for the better players.”

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/golf.com/news/rory-mcilroy-distance-report-bifurcation/amp/

 

 

So, here is Rory saying he is “all for” limiting performance on golf tech.

 

Why?

 

Because he is an elite player and doesn’t need the same toaster as a 70 year old, 15 handicap playing the forward tees. 

[ThinkingPlus]

2 minutes ago, disco111 said:

I've attempted to add a little humor with a couple of posts, but perhaps it's time to get seriously objective. I think it's time to remove the possibility of rolling back anything and focus on the glaring problem of...............Do they allow further distance increases from equipment refinements?   

The RBs currently have caps on MOI, CT/COR, ball speed, club length, head volume, tee height, groove geometry, etc... (I probably missed some - face size?).  I believe total weight was suggested by one of the posters in this thread.  Not sure what other specs would be meaningful.  Testing at higher swing speeds has been suggested.

[nsxguy]

2 hours ago, milesgiles said:

 

You may not have noticed but the average golfer sucks at anything apart from the toaster. It doesn’t help them, it kills the rest of their game.

The great thing about a traditional clubhead is that it forces you to swing better and then you’ll enjoy the rest of the game more.

 

 

That sounds suspiciously like blade guys saying they play blades because the blade forces them to "focus" more.     

 

 

3 hours ago, milesgiles said:

 

You cant buy a club for less than $600? 

 

Wow didn’t know that cheers 

 

2 hours ago, milesgiles said:

 

I’m seeing dozens of callaways Taylor mades srixons etc under $300 without shopping around at all literally first site I clicked on. 

 

https://www.golfonline.co.uk/golf-drivers#sortColumn=4&sortDirection=1&expandVirtualProducts=false&category_id=39

 

You absolutely know (my opinion of course) that Tubbs is referring to the major manufacturers BRAND NEW premium driver range which, here in the U.S. starts around $499, with the sole exception of Titleist's 2nd tier Cobra brand ($449).

 

Add tax (ex Cobra) and you're at least in the mid $500s.

 

But you wanted to "win" your point,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, so Congrats !!!  

 

 

8 hours ago, milesgiles said:

 

I think any amateur who considers himself even semi decent would be shamed into using a proper club.

Personally I’d point out any playing partners still using a 460 and snigger at them in the clubhouse with my mates 

 

Somehow you sniggering at someone using a legal driver (even though you wouldn't) doesn't surprise me even a little bit. 

[Bubbtubbs]

2 hours ago, bscinstnct said:

 

Its a “tour” driver. The only ones who are mandated to use it are tour pros. 
 

 

So bifurcation?

 

I'd be fine with that if it would actually satisfy the RB crowd, but it may not be enough. 

2 hours ago, smashdn said:

 

Price point could be one way.  I am sure there are others.

 

We purchase inferior* automobiles all the time.  The name of the game is to remove material from the car and sell it for the same price.  (*Inferior in the sense that the components are lighter, less robust though the assembly of the components may be just as good.)

 

The groove rule did this did it not?  If you looked at it on the surface the new grooves were not supposed to perform as well as the old ones.  In practice I noticed no difference.  I'd venture most recreational golfers did not either.

I saw where you're coming from, though the analogy is poor. The materials in modern cars may have cheapened but in most cases they are faster, consume less fuel and have tech benefits to make up for it. A better comparison would be if you took the 2021 model of the Honda Civic, dropped 50hp and removed Bluetooth and navigation capability, then enacted legislation compelling people to purchase it and ignore the large number of previous models still on the market.

 

Still, I would support a price point reduction, preferably by making product cycles 5y or so and allowing the OEM to profit from R&D longer instead of passing it on to the consumer every year or two.

 

2 hours ago, milesgiles said:

 

I’m seeing dozens of callaways Taylor mades srixons etc under $300 without shopping around at all literally first site I clicked on. 

 

https://www.golfonline.co.uk/golf-drivers#sortColumn=4&sortDirection=1&expandVirtualProducts=false&category_id=39

Nothing equivalent to this exists in Canada, as far as I'm aware. We have Golf Town, Golf Avenue and Globalgolf. It's worth noting neither of the two discount sites are even selling 2020 clubs yet and finding one in X-flex is tough with off-season inventories, let alone the right loft, length and shaft profile.

 

As for TSi pricing, since it was the only club on the first three pages that was a new release... Ugh, my phone is being dumb. I'll edit in the screenshot after.

 

Edit: here you go. 

 

Edited November 4, 2020 by Bubbtubbs
Added picture after restart

[Dr. Block]

1 hour ago, ThinkingPlus said:

You sort of made my point.  A modern treatment of a balata ball and persimmon driver will perform better than what everyone recalls from 30 odd years ago.  Many of the shortcomings of that equipment may have been manufacturing related or design related that would be fixed if performance replication wasn't mandated.

It would be interesting to see what kind of numbers a quality, tightly-grained persimmon head could achieve were it driven by one of today's exceptional driver shafts.  Everyone wants to blame the distance race on the driver heads, but I think the shafts they are making today have as much (if not more) to do with it. They are incredible, and they keep getting more incredible

[clevited]

How about a hopefully thought provoking new direction here.  I know there was a thread a while back on this, but I don't remember what all was discussed in there but have any of you put much thought into what would occur should you no longer be able to use a tee or ground mound at all?  My thoughts below.

 

-I think it would rough on the average golfer as a sweeping rule change.  Primarily for the longer clubs.

-I think it would be more effective naturally than a short tee like Miles suggested.

-I am unsure of how this plays out as I haven't thought much about it. My best guess is that it would definitely have an impact on distance but how much I cannot quantify.  Hitting the ball off the ground makes positive AoA essentially completely gone (well to a certain degree anyway) so spin mitigation with club delivery can be difficult.  You can design a lot of that spin out of the club though even with a negative attack angle, so there is that.  Getting the ball off the ground high enough to clear trees might be tough enough to make a significant impact.  I will have to think more on this one, but it is at least intriguing to me to think about what it may and may not do as far as realizing the goals of the RBs should they decide to do something.

 

Any thoughts, or can anyone point me to some good previous posts I may have missed regarding this?

[smashdn]

2 minutes ago, Dr. Block said:

It would be interesting to see what kind of numbers a quality, tightly-grained persimmon head could achieve were it driven by one of today's exceptional driver shafts.  Everyone wants to blame the distance race on the driver heads, but I think the shafts they are making today have as much (if not more) to do with it. They are incredible, and they keep getting more incredible

 

Struck on the screws very little I would venture.

 

Just like my other bad analogy about car material weight reduction, the use of lighter materials in the head means many other things can occur, not just a lighter head.  For instance, the head can be larger, which means the face can be larger, extra weight can be repositioned, extra material can be utilized to stiffen the face top to bottom and side to side.  It builds upon itself.

[clevited]

3 minutes ago, Dr. Block said:

It would be interesting to see what kind of numbers a quality, tightly-grained persimmon head could achieve were it driven by one of today's exceptional driver shafts.  Everyone wants to blame the distance race on the driver heads, but I think the shafts they are making today have as much (if not more) to do with it. They are incredible, and they keep getting more incredible

 

I have some personal information along these lines.  I used to have a launch monitor (working on getting a different one), and I have several old clubs including persimmon and laminated drivers.  The numbers I can get with the laminated one specifically were shocking to me.  Granted, it was much harder to get in a groove with that club versus my normal club partially because the grip is so crappy, but I have screen shotted many of my best ones and if I hit this one with just the right amount of AoA and with a draw shape, I could get spin down to right at optimal of about 2k, and launch angles over 10 degrees.  I will have to dig up those shots to see exactly what I was able to do but it was surprisingly good.  170s ball speed, over 10 degrees launch, and 2k rpm equals bombs.  I can only imagine what a modern version of one would be like fit to my needs.

[ThinkingPlus]

2 minutes ago, Dr. Block said:

It would be interesting to see what kind of numbers a quality, tightly-grained persimmon head could achieve were it driven by one of today's exceptional driver shafts.  Everyone wants to blame the distance race on the driver heads, but I think the shafts they are making today have as much (if not more) to do with it. They are incredible, and they keep getting more incredible

Yes.  The distance increases seen in the last 30+ years are due to many variables, many of which are dependent or not amenable to rule based restriction.  It is complex.  Since the "problem" seems to be a style of play rather than raw distance alone, a solution which only rolls back distance may not change the style of play.

[Dr. Block]

8 minutes ago, smashdn said:

 

Struck on the screws very little I would venture.

 

Just like my other bad analogy about car material weight reduction, the use of lighter materials in the head means many other things can occur, not just a lighter head.  For instance, the head can be larger, which means the face can be larger, extra weight can be repositioned, extra material can be utilized to stiffen the face top to bottom and side to side.  It builds upon itself.

There's no doubt about that. Driver head engineering advances have provided a "persimmon struck on the screws" result across a much bigger surface, but it does point to something interesting (in my opinion).  If they limit the driver heads in anyway, it won't accomplish anything, because the shafts won't change, and the shafts are really the main factor. The shafts and the way they interact with the performance of the ball.  

 

I'm sure this isn't any sort of new breakthrough in this marathon thread, but I'm a little scattered right now, and I fought through hacking it out, so I'm hitting submit 🙂 

 

 

Edited November 4, 2020 by Dr. Block

[Dr. Block]

11 minutes ago, clevited said:

 

I have some personal information along these lines.  I used to have a launch monitor (working on getting a different one), and I have several old clubs including persimmon and laminated drivers.  The numbers I can get with the laminated one specifically were shocking to me.  Granted, it was much harder to get in a groove with that club versus my normal club partially because the grip is so crappy, but I have screen shotted many of my best ones and if I hit this one with just the right amount of AoA and with a draw shape, I could get spin down to right at optimal of about 2k, and launch angles over 10 degrees.  I will have to dig up those shots to see exactly what I was able to do but it was surprisingly good.  170s ball speed, over 10 degrees launch, and 2k rpm equals bombs.  I can only imagine what a modern version of one would be like fit to my needs.

 I would only be interested in seeing somebody plunk something like a Ventus or similar in a Wood bros Texan, or a vintage Mac head (the very best of the best persimmon).  I doubt anyone has that much time on their hands, lol

Edited November 4, 2020 by Dr. Block

[bscinstnct]

Just now, ThinkingPlus said:

Yes.  The distance increases seen in the last 30+ years are due to many variables, many of which are dependent or not amenable to rule based restriction.  It is complex.  Since the "problem" seems to be a style of play rather than raw distance alone, a solution which only rolls back distance may not change the style of play.

 

Style of play is not my issue. It’s only a distance issue. 

 

TW 1.0 is the standard for modern style of play and I’m President of the TW fan club ; )

 

Yes, a moderate roll back of distance (285 average, 300-305 leaders) would not impact “style of play”.

 

Rory said straight up he is all for limiting how forgiving modern gear is. And his success is built on a “style of play” that favors the bomber. 

[smashdn]

8 minutes ago, Dr. Block said:

There's no doubt about that. Driver head engineering advances have provided a "persimmon struck on the screws" result across a much bigger surface, but it does point to something interesting (in my opinion).  If they limit the driver heads in anyway, it won't accomplish anything, because the shafts won't change, and the shafts are really the main factor. The shafts and the way they interact with the performance of the ball.  

 

I'm sure this isn't any sort of new breakthrough in this marathon thread, but I'm a little scattered right now, and I fought through hacking it out, so I'm hitting submit 🙂 

 

 

 

I covered that (attempted at least) with one of my replies a few back.

 

Think I said something along the lines of a weight to length similar to steel and limit the shaft at 110cm.  My hope is that you end up with a shaft as heavy as a steel one and cap the total length of the driver (and subsequent woods).  I realize that leaves it open to move kickpoint and all the other things that the shaft builders can do.  I am admittedly not savvy enough nor in the "shaft technology game" deep enough to tell you how to limit those types of things or even if limiting them is warranted.

[clevited]

4 minutes ago, Dr. Block said:

 I would only be interested in seeing somebody plunk something like a Ventus or similar in a Wood bros Texan, or a vintage Mac head (the very best of the best persimmon).  I doubt anyone has that much time on their hands, lol

 

I could do it.  I do my own club building.  I have extra graphite shafts laying around, if I get bored this winter I will give it a go.  Just got to figure out how to deal with the ferule issues.

[smashdn]

14 minutes ago, ThinkingPlus said:

Yes.  The distance increases seen in the last 30+ years are due to many variables, many of which are dependent or not amenable to rule based restriction.  It is complex.  Since the "problem" seems to be a style of play rather than raw distance alone, a solution which only rolls back distance may not change the style of play.

 

Two things to ponder.  

 

Does distance not beget that style of play?

Or now that we "know how the sausage is made" via understanding strokes gained, have we (really the pros) lost the ability to play the game any other way but "by the SG numbers?"

[ThinkingPlus]

5 minutes ago, bscinstnct said:

 

Style of play is not my issue. It’s only a distance issue. 

 

TW 1.0 is the standard for modern style of play and I’m President of the TW fan club ; )

 

Yes, a moderate roll back of distance (285 average, 300-305 leaders) would not impact “style of play”.

 

Rory said straight up he is all for limiting how forgiving modern gear is. And his success is built on a “style of play” that favors the bomber. 

So you don't like the extra distance today because they hit it further than Tiger 1.0.  😉

[Dr. Block]

2 minutes ago, clevited said:

 

I could do it.  I do my own club building.  I have extra graphite shafts laying around, if I get bored this winter I will give it a go.  Just got to figure out how to deal with the ferule issues.

I appreciate your vigor and passion in the pursuit of golf science.  You might end up with a club that would be very beneficial to practice with.  If you can max out launch conditions and still barrel up a persimmon consistently, you will groove your swing quite nicely. 

[Bad9]

1 hour ago, ThinkingPlus said:

The RBs currently have caps on MOI, CT/COR, ball speed, club length, head volume, tee height, groove geometry, etc... (I probably missed some - face size?).  I believe total weight was suggested by one of the posters in this thread.  Not sure what other specs would be meaningful.  Testing at higher swing speeds has been suggested.

And they have all been set since 2004 or so.

[Bubbtubbs]

11 minutes ago, smashdn said:

 

I covered that (attempted at least) with one of my replies a few back.

 

Think I said something along the lines of a weight to length similar to steel and limit the shaft at 110cm.  My hope is that you end up with a shaft as heavy as a steel one and cap the total length of the driver (and subsequent woods).  I realize that leaves it open to move kickpoint and all the other things that the shaft builders can do.  I am admittedly not savvy enough nor in the "shaft technology game" deep enough to tell you how to limit those types of things or even if limiting them is warranted.

I grew up playing persimmons and a set of 3,5,7,9,P blades for years. I only switched to graphite in the driver because it was becoming difficult to find used ones with steel in them anymore. My 3w and 5w were steel shaft Nike T-40 clubs until a couple years ago.

[ThinkingPlus]

3 minutes ago, smashdn said:

 

Two things to ponder.  

 

Does distance not beget that style of play?

Or now that we "know how the sausage is made" via understanding strokes gained, have we (really the pros) lost the ability to play the game any other way but "by the SG numbers?"

Some amount of distance is necessary for bomb and gouge.  However, the bigger enabler (IMO), is course design and setup. No penalty bearing hazards is the biggest enabler.  They don't bomb and gouge at the Honda for a reason.  They also don't shoot -20 for 4 rounds.

[Dr. Block]

3 hours ago, smashdn said:

 

Two things to ponder.  

 

Does distance not beget that style of play?

Or now that we "know how the sausage is made" via understanding strokes gained, have we (really the pros) lost the ability to play the game any other way but "by the SG numbers?"

The value of metrics and their effect on the golfing athlete is like a cold war Soviet train chugging along. Not even Commander Bond could stop it. Might as well get used to it, it is the future of the game. 

Edited November 4, 2020 by Dr. Block

[bscinstnct]

23 minutes ago, ThinkingPlus said:

So you don't like the extra distance today because they hit it further than Tiger 1.0.  😉

 

 

Busted!! Haha!

 

Well, not exactly. I don’t care if the players hit it farther now. 
But, I also don’t think that the extra yards from 300 to 320 have added any cool, new, aspects to “style of play” that TW 1.0 didn’t highlight. 

Edited November 4, 2020 by bscinstnct