Is it time to limit the length of drivers in the equipment rules?

[2bGood]

41 minutes ago, sui generis said:

 

I'm astonished that there are even TWO people (you and Michelson) who think this matters. 🙄

Physics. Basic Physics. Unlike Bryson I do have a degree in it. 

[Nels55]

3 hours ago, 2bGood said:

Physics. Basic Physics. Unlike Bryson I do have a degree in it. 

Well, the change to limit the max length to 46 inches will not make the slightest bit of difference to current tour pros who don't use drivers that long anyway.  I guess that it would have an effect on long drive competitors possibly giving an advantage to stronger faster folks.  I believe that the main purpose is to limit the future where 48 inch drivers might become feasible for tour players.  

[llewol007]

I dont think so. No one out there would dare play a super long driver and not expect it to affect the rest of the bag. I gave it a go just playing a 46" driver and my timing was way off. More power to you to get enough control on your driver than going back to regular length irons. 

[2bGood]

17 hours ago, Nels55 said:

Well, the change to limit the max length to 46 inches will not make the slightest bit of difference to current tour pros who don't use drivers that long anyway.  I guess that it would have an effect on long drive competitors possibly giving an advantage to stronger faster folks.  I believe that the main purpose is to limit the future where 48 inch drivers might become feasible for tour players.  

 

If you read my original post you will see that is my point - changing it now really effects very very very few. However I have no doubt technology and players improvement will find a way to get the most out of 48" drivers if given the chance over time. 

 

It is analogous to the RB's not setting a size limit on the driver head size or moi for so long as no one thought it was needed. Then technology changes things.

 

You mise well set the limit now rather than later.

 

 

Edited September 11, 2021 by 2bGood

[ThinkingPlus]

49 minutes ago, 2bGood said:

 

If you read my original post you will see that is my point - changing to now really effects very very very few. However I have no doubt technology and players improvement will find a way to get the most out of 48" if given the chance over time. 

 

It is analogous to the RB's not setting a size limit on the driver head size or moi for so long as no one thought it was needed. Then technology changes things.

 

You mise well set the limit now rather than later.

 

 

There is already a limit set at 48".  The only players that will currently be hurt by a more restrictive limit are those that already are short off the tee.  Once again the RBs are shotgunning with rules changes hitting more bystanders than intended targets.

[clinkinfo]

On 9/24/2020 at 6:40 PM, 2bGood said:

Basically no one uses a 48" driver outside of long drive. But the length of drivers is creeping up each year, so I am sure at some point the technology will allow us to reliably hit longer drivers. Given the ruling bodies interest in protecting golf courses from length, is now a good time to limit club length to 46" as a preemptive move?

 

The RB's always seem to be one step behind changes in equipment and then find themselves trying to 'fix' things rather than prevent them. 

 

EDIT: One year later the RB's are proposing this - Proposal to limit drivers to 46"

 

no, it’s already limited to 48, and as you state, no one really plays 48.  And if someone wants to put in the time to get repeatable and good at 48”, more power to them.  This is another golf “problem” that doesn’t actually exist.

[sui generis]

4 hours ago, clinkinfo said:

 

no, it’s already limited to 48, and as you state, no one really plays 48.  And if someone wants to put in the time to get repeatable and good at 48”, more power to them.  This is another golf “problem” that doesn’t actually exist.

 

Or, one might look at the R&A/USGA another way. They took heat for the 2015 "anchoring ban" with the critics asking why it took them so long.

 

I'd suggest they were actually looking forward when it came to their notice that children and juniors were being taught "belly chipping" and the ruling bodies wanted to head that off.

 

You can bet that the Florida/Texas/Arizona/California kids' golf academies are headed down the Bryson road. They may not want 16 year old boys pounding 48" drivers 350 yards. 

[ThinkingPlus]

18 minutes ago, sui generis said:

 

Or, one might look at the R&A/USGA another way. They took heat for the 2015 "anchoring ban" with the critics asking why it took them so long.

 

I'd suggest they were actually looking forward when it came to their notice that children and juniors were being taught "belly chipping" and the ruling bodies wanted to head that off.

 

You can bet that the Florida/Texas/Arizona/California kids' golf academies are headed down the Bryson road. They may not want 16 year old boys pounding 48" drivers 350 yards. 

Yeah, that 10 - 12 extra yards makes all the difference.

[sui generis]

7 minutes ago, ThinkingPlus said:

Yeah, that 10 - 12 extra yards makes all the difference.

 

They have to chip away where they can. They're up against the OEMs in many ways. The arguments in favor of protecting old courses such as Merion have some merit, I think. 🙂

[2bGood]

16 hours ago, ThinkingPlus said:

Yeah, that 10 - 12 extra yards makes all the difference.

With the exception of being inside about 100 yards I am sure most golfers would prefer to be hitting one less club into a green in nearly every instance. 
 

Besides this is  not about any kind of radical change, it is making a small change now when it has little impact.  

Edited September 12, 2021 by 2bGood

[clinkinfo]

3 hours ago, sui generis said:

 

Or, one might look at the R&A/USGA another way. They took heat for the 2015 "anchoring ban" with the critics asking why it took them so long.

 

I'd suggest they were actually looking forward when it came to their notice that children and juniors were being taught "belly chipping" and the ruling bodies wanted to head that off.

 

You can bet that the Florida/Texas/Arizona/California kids' golf academies are headed down the Bryson road. They may not want 16 year old boys pounding 48" drivers 350 yards. 

 

 

You can only look at it that way if you believe there's an underlying problem. I do not.  

 

Regardless, they already had those discussions and decided to limit driver length to 48”.  That’s the whole point, this is trying to RE-have a discussion and limit is AGAIN, all because …and lets be honest here….1 or 2 tour players have been hitting long drives with long drivers.  Not the whole field, not even a dozen players.  Seriously, like 1 or 2.  How long have we been able to use 48" drivers?  That's right....a long time, BUT when someone actually gets good at using one THEN the rules have to change "to protect golf".  

 

So I guess by that logic as soon as anyone gets good at anything near the edge of the rules we need to change the rules again, right?  It’s the same stupid thing that long putters fell victim too.  Long anchored putters benefitted a small number of people, who put in the hours and time to learn how to use it.  Most golfers did not like them and found there was no benefit to using them.  but when those same golfers saw OTHER players start to get good at putting with them, all of a sudden there’s a crisis in golf that requires new rules and limits.  And then forget it, Arnold Palmer started chirping about it and the rule was changed.  Again, where was the actual universal benefit for everyone?  I mean if anchored putters benefited everyone, why didn't everyone use them?  That's right, because they didn't.

 

We are talking about 2 inches in shaft length, a length they already limit.  A rule that's ALREADY in place.  But to me, it’s just another micro-example of what’s wrong with golf.  We could be making the rules simpler and more friendly for amateurs.  We could be working to speed up play.  But instead, we are discussing taking action on 2 inches of driver length….what's that, about 4mph club head speed?  yeah, ok.  

 

I think as a collective group, golfers have some serious issues.  Most golfers cannot take a 48” driver and do anything constructive with it. but, some people decide to practice and test, over and over, until they can use something longer than the stock 45-46”, but shorter than the 48” limit.  A few people start to get good at it, not everyone mind you, just a few.  So what’s golf’s reaction?  Oh man, we need to limit the length of drivers right now, did you see the one Bryson was hitting the other day.   What a stupid knee-jerk reaction.

 

Belly chipping?  I don’t know what you’re talking about, I’ve never heard of anyone teaching belly chipping, but it seems pretty obvious you could have stopped belly chipping without making long putter anchoring illegal.  So again, if belly chipping was the concern, why would you outlaw long putters?  Another perfect example of the stupidity in the golf rules logic at times.  

 

Oh, and there are already 16 year olds on the junior tours hitting over 300 without the 48" drivers.   So you may as well create rules against golf fitness and nutrition while you're re-writing, if the goal is to stop them all that is.   

[sui generis]

2 minutes ago, clinkinfo said:

 

 

You can only look at it that way if you believe there's an underlying problem. I do not.  

 

Regardless, they already had those discussions and decided to limit driver length to 48”.  That’s the whole point, this is trying to RE-have a discussion and limit is AGAIN, all because …and lets be honest here….1 or 2 tour players have been hitting long drives with long drivers.  Not the whole field, not even a dozen players.  Seriously, like 1 or 2.  How long have we been able to use 48" drivers?  That's right....a long time, BUT when someone actually gets good at using one THEN the rules have to change "to protect golf".  

 

So I guess by that logic as soon as anyone gets good at anything near the edge of the rules we need to change the rules again, right?  It’s the same stupid thing that long putters fell victim too.  Long anchored putters benefitted a small number of people, who put in the hours and time to learn how to use it.  Most golfers did not like them and found there was no benefit to using them.  but when those same golfers saw OTHER players start to get good at putting with them, all of a sudden there’s a crisis in golf that requires new rules and limits.  And then forget it, Arnold Palmer started chirping about it and the rule was changed.  Again, where was the actual universal benefit for everyone?  I mean if anchored putters benefited everyone, why didn't everyone use them?  That's right, because they didn't.

 

We are talking about 2 inches in shaft length, a length they already limit.  A rule that's ALREADY in place.  But to me, it’s just another micro-example of what’s wrong with golf.  We could be making the rules simpler and more friendly for amateurs.  We could be working to speed up play.  But instead, we are discussing taking action on 2 inches of driver length….what's that, about 4mph club head speed?  yeah, ok.  

 

I think as a collective group, golfers have some serious issues.  Most golfers cannot take a 48” driver and do anything constructive with it. but, some people decide to practice and test, over and over, until they can use something longer than the stock 45-46”, but shorter than the 48” limit.  A few people start to get good at it, not everyone mind you, just a few.  So what’s golf’s reaction?  Oh man, we need to limit the length of drivers right now, did you see the one Bryson was hitting the other day.   What a stupid knee-jerk reaction.

 

Belly chipping?  I don’t know what you’re talking about, I’ve never heard of anyone teaching belly chipping, but it seems pretty obvious you could have stopped belly chipping without making long putter anchoring illegal.  So again, if belly chipping was the concern, why would you outlaw long putters?  Another perfect example of the stupidity in the golf rules logic at times.  

 

Oh, and there are already 16 year olds on the junior tours hitting over 300 without the 48" drivers.   So you may as well create rules against golf fitness and nutrition while you're re-writing, if the goal is to stop them all that is.   

 

You're entitled to your opinion, of course. And if that's how you've decided to view the world, well, good luck. 🙄

[clinkinfo]

2 minutes ago, sui generis said:

 

You're entitled to your opinion, of course. And if that's how you've decided to view the world, well, good luck. 🙄

 

You're entitled to your opinion as well. 

 

I didn't realize i'd made some worldly observations, I thought we were discussing a 2 inch rules change, but I'll take the insincere luck anyway.

[sui generis]

16 minutes ago, clinkinfo said:

 

You're entitled to your opinion as well. 

 

I didn't realize i'd made some worldly observations, I thought we were discussing a 2 inch rules change, but I'll take the insincere luck anyway.

 

All opinions are not created equal. I've been around the USGA and their operation for the past thirty years and the R&A for some twenty years before that. I have no doubts about either's competence or commitment to honest rule making. 🙂

[bekgolf]

The only good reason I can think of to limit driver length is so I don't have to cut my shaft down and adjust the swing weight on a new driver.  How about a rule that manufacturers can't sell a driver with more than a 44.5" shaft to the general public?  How about a rule that all pro driver and ball combinations cannot go longer than Jack's longest recorded drive, lol? 

 

IMO that's what it's about, making sure the current pros who train for golf specific things don't finish with lower numbers than the old golfing greats who relied on natural talent vs modern pros modifying their lifestyle for golf specific goals.

 

FFS I bought a driver with a stock length of 45.75"!  It just doesn't work most of the time and had to be swapped out to a shorter shaft.

 

While we are discussing making rules why not make a rule as to what the loft of a club can be?  It would be nice to have some sort of standardization of lofts and club number. 

 

Signed in satire,

Not a fan of jacked lofts or stupid rules

[clinkinfo]

31 minutes ago, sui generis said:

 

All opinions are not created equal. I've been around the USGA and their operation for the past thirty years and the R&A for some twenty years before that. I have no doubts about either's competence or commitment to honest rule making. 🙂

 

Oh Lord.

 

A personal snub first, then 50+ years of resume expertise.  And the pièce de résistance... A generic, but meaningless, proclamation... Your faith in "honest rule making". 

 

What the hell was this topic about again?

 

I keep forgetting not to post on Saturday nights.

 

 

 

 

[2bGood]

13 hours ago, clinkinfo said:

 

 

You can only look at it that way if you believe there's an underlying problem. I do not.  

 

Regardless, they already had those discussions and decided to limit driver length to 48”.  That’s the whole point, this is trying to RE-have a discussion and limit is AGAIN, all because …and lets be honest here….1 or 2 tour players have been hitting long drives with long drivers.  Not the whole field, not even a dozen players.  Seriously, like 1 or 2.  How long have we been able to use 48" drivers?  That's right....a long time, BUT when someone actually gets good at using one THEN the rules have to change "to protect golf".  

 

So I guess by that logic as soon as anyone gets good at anything near the edge of the rules we need to change the rules again, right?  It’s the same stupid thing that long putters fell victim too.  Long anchored putters benefitted a small number of people, who put in the hours and time to learn how to use it.  Most golfers did not like them and found there was no benefit to using them.  but when those same golfers saw OTHER players start to get good at putting with them, all of a sudden there’s a crisis in golf that requires new rules and limits.  And then forget it, Arnold Palmer started chirping about it and the rule was changed.  Again, where was the actual universal benefit for everyone?  I mean if anchored putters benefited everyone, why didn't everyone use them?  That's right, because they didn't.

 

We are talking about 2 inches in shaft length, a length they already limit.  A rule that's ALREADY in place.  But to me, it’s just another micro-example of what’s wrong with golf.  We could be making the rules simpler and more friendly for amateurs.  We could be working to speed up play.  But instead, we are discussing taking action on 2 inches of driver length….what's that, about 4mph club head speed?  yeah, ok.  

 

I think as a collective group, golfers have some serious issues.  Most golfers cannot take a 48” driver and do anything constructive with it. but, some people decide to practice and test, over and over, until they can use something longer than the stock 45-46”, but shorter than the 48” limit.  A few people start to get good at it, not everyone mind you, just a few.  So what’s golf’s reaction?  Oh man, we need to limit the length of drivers right now, did you see the one Bryson was hitting the other day.   What a stupid knee-jerk reaction.

 

Belly chipping?  I don’t know what you’re talking about, I’ve never heard of anyone teaching belly chipping, but it seems pretty obvious you could have stopped belly chipping without making long putter anchoring illegal.  So again, if belly chipping was the concern, why would you outlaw long putters?  Another perfect example of the stupidity in the golf rules logic at times.  

 

Oh, and there are already 16 year olds on the junior tours hitting over 300 without the 48" drivers.   So you may as well create rules against golf fitness and nutrition while you're re-writing, if the goal is to stop them all that is.   

 

They made the 48" rule back when they thought it would not matter as not one would play a driver that long. That was a mistake as drivers have gotten longer and longer. This is a great chance to bring the limit down before drivers over 46" become widespread. 

 

 

 

12 hours ago, bekgolf said:

The only good reason I can think of to limit driver length is so I don't have to cut my shaft down and adjust the swing weight on a new driver.  How about a rule that manufacturers can't sell a driver with more than a 44.5" shaft to the general public?  How about a rule that all pro driver and ball combinations cannot go longer than Jack's longest recorded drive, lol? 

 

IMO that's what it's about, making sure the current pros who train for golf specific things don't finish with lower numbers than the old golfing greats who relied on natural talent vs modern pros modifying their lifestyle for golf specific goals.

 

FFS I bought a driver with a stock length of 45.75"!  It just doesn't work most of the time and had to be swapped out to a shorter shaft.

 

While we are discussing making rules why not make a rule as to what the loft of a club can be?  It would be nice to have some sort of standardization of lofts and club number. 

 

Signed in satire,

Not a fan of jacked lofts or stupid rules

 

You seem to ignore the fact that technology has had a significant role in increased distance, not just golf training and fitness. 

 

 

[dlygrisse]

You want to cut back on distance for long hitters?  Make the ball spin more off the driver. It won’t hurt the short hitters as much, it will balloon for longer hitters like it did in the balata days. 
 

I am experimenting with a 48” driver. Trying to regain some distance. So far range experiments are encouraging 

[Halebopp]

15 hours ago, clinkinfo said:

 So again, if belly chipping was the concern, why would you outlaw long putters?  Another perfect example of the stupidity in the golf rules logic at times.  

 

You really shouldn't be blaming others for the stupidity of your own, made-up rules.

[clinkinfo]

2 hours ago, 2bGood said:

 

They made the 48" rule back when they thought it would not matter as not one would play a driver that long. That was a mistake as drivers have gotten longer and longer. This is a great chance to bring the limit down before drivers over 46" become widespread. 

 

 

 

 

You seem to ignore the fact that technology has had a significant role in increased distance, not just golf training and fitness. 

 

 

 

I’m not ignoring technology.  The 2 inches translates to about 3-4 mph of club speed.  Now that some are trying to use that 2 inches we need to change the rules?  it sounds awfully unnecessary to me.  
 

Fitness and analytics have added more club speed over the last 20 years.  Why not also regulate that?  
 

this all makes even less sense when all you have to do is regulate the ball for pros if you want to limit distance.  But who knows, that probably causes other problems, amateurs willl all want to change balls and play the limited one the pro’s play too.
 

Edited September 12, 2021 by clinkinfo

[sui generis]

22 minutes ago, clinkinfo said:

 

I’m not ignoring technology.  The 2 inches translates to about 3-4 mph of club speed.  Now that some are trying to use that 2 inches we need to change the rules?  it sounds awfully unnecessary to me.  
 

Fitness and analytics have added more club speed over the last 20 years.  Why not also regulate that?  
 

this all makes even less sense when all you have to do is regulate the ball for pros if you want to limit distance.  But who knows, that probably causes other problems, amateurs willl all want to change balls and play the limited one the pro’s play too.
 

 

The "rules am stupid" crowd doesn't fare well in the Wrx Rules forum. They have more fun in Tour Talk where they can have a deep and meaningful discussion on things like Rickie Fowler's newest white belt, and such. 😉

[bekgolf]

1 hour ago, 2bGood said:

 

 

 

 

 

You seem to ignore the fact that technology has had a significant role in increased distance, not just golf training and fitness. 

 

 

 

 

I don't see longer drives as a problem.  I think it adds excitement to tournament golf.  The whole risk/reward thing.  I would like to see the risk portion be riskier with longer rough and narrower fairways in the landing zones.  Maybe even introducing more native growth areas.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[clinkinfo]

1 minute ago, bekgolf said:

 

 

I don't see longer drives as a problem.  I think it adds excitement to tournament golf.  The whole risk/reward thing.  I would like to see the risk portion be riskier with longer rough and narrower fairways in the landing zones.  Maybe even introducing more native growth areas.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I agree 100%. You can set up the course so the risk is big and real.  Don't know why that really hasn't happened more already honestly.

[2bGood]

10 hours ago, clinkinfo said:

 

Fitness and analytics have added more club speed over the last 20 years.  Why not also regulate that?  
 

 It pretty easy to write a rule for the longest club length to be 46". Tell me how you would write a rule to limit fitness? and one to limit analytics (off the course)?

Edited September 13, 2021 by 2bGood

[clinkinfo]

1 hour ago, 2bGood said:

 It pretty easy to write a rule the longest club length 46". Tell me how you would write a rule to limit fitness? and one to limit analytics (of the course)?

 

You wouldn't limit fitness or analytics, that's the whole point. 

 

This is a competitive sport, athletes are allowed to use whatever is within the rules to gain an advantage. And generally we collectively applaud them when they do...great knowledge of the rules, great putting skill, better preparation...it's all "good" unless you hit it far? Then there's something wrong, because that's just not fair and we need to shorten your clubs?  You're not playing golf "right"?  You're overpowering all the courses?  Look, Maybe the courses need to change and punish risky decisions, not the rules.

 

I'd rather see competitive athletes compete within the rules we have, the results will be the results.  The playing field is already level in opportunity anyway. It's like a free market, no one has a monopoly on anything.  For example, anyone can do the workout routine Bryson is doing and use all the same equipment.  The fact that everyone isn't doing that is telling us there's not an "absolute" advantage in solely chasing distance, hence why many of us are saying there isn't an actual problem, it's just a competitive strategy decision to chase more distance.

 

BUT, let's just say we accept that limiting distance if our collective goal... it seems especially silly to re-write a shaft length rule when it's not the primary contributor of the on-course length you're trying to limit.

[Nels55]

39 minutes ago, clinkinfo said:

 

You wouldn't limit fitness or analytics, that's the whole point. 

 

This is a competitive sport, athletes are allowed to use whatever is within the rules to gain an advantage. And generally we collectively applaud them when they do...great knowledge of the rules, great putting skill, better preparation...it's all "good" unless you hit it far? Then there's something wrong, because that's just not fair and we need to shorten your clubs?  You're not playing golf "right"?  You're overpowering all the courses?  Look, Maybe the courses need to change and punish risky decisions, not the rules.

 

I'd rather see competitive athletes compete within the rules we have, the results will be the results.  The playing field is already level in opportunity anyway. It's like a free market, no one has a monopoly on anything.  For example, anyone can do the workout routine Bryson is doing and use all the same equipment.  The fact that everyone isn't doing that is telling us there's not an "absolute" advantage in solely chasing distance, hence why many of us are saying there isn't an actual problem, it's just a competitive strategy decision to chase more distance.

 

BUT, let's just say we accept that limiting distance if our collective goal... it seems especially silly to re-write a shaft length rule when it's not the primary contributor of the on-course length you're trying to limit.

If we do accept that limiting distance is our collective goal then limiting club length to 46 inches right now is one of the few things that can be done without causing a huge commotion.  Very few will be slightly inconvenienced compared to trying to impose the same limit at some point in the future like they did with the anchoring ban.  This is based on supposing that 48 inch drivers might become a thing and provide a real problem for our 'collective goal'.  LOL I have been on both sides of this one but I think that the changing the limit to 46 inches is actually a reasonable idea and I am in favor of doing it.  Of course if the majority of golfers think otherwise then I am good with leaving the maximum length at 48 inches.  In the end I really don't think that most golfers care one way or another.  

 

Now if they really want to do something about 'our collective goal' then it would be better to limit maximum club length to 41 or 42 inches.  This would give an even larger advantage to athletic golfers than exists currently.  This would also be awesome for OEMs as everyone would have to get new drivers and a lot of fairway clubs!  Think of the advertising potential for a shorter driver that is actually proven to go farther for the average golfer then the old longer driver did!  

 

LOL I have actually played a 48 inch driver and also a 41 inch driver fairly recently and I scored about the same with both of them.  I tended to swing really hard with the short one though...  

[denkea]

Back when one of the U.S. Opens at Pinehurst the balls most were using was the Titleist Balata (liquid center, rubber windings).  The next Open they had at Pinehurst most were using the Titleist Professional (solid center with rubber windings).  That resulted in approx 20 yards more diving distance on average. 

When the Pro V (Solid center, no more rubber windings) distance increased more.

 

It's DA Ball baby.  It's DA Ball.   

 

 

.

Edited September 13, 2021 by denkea

[sui generis]

35 minutes ago, denkea said:

Back when one of the U.S. Opens at Pinehurst the balls most were using was the Titleist Balata (liquid center, rubber windings).  The next Open they had at Pinehurst most were using the Titleist Professional (solid center with rubber windings).  That resulted in approx 20 yards more diving distance on average. 

When the Pro V (Solid center, no more rubber windings) distance increased more.

 

It's DA Ball baby.  It's DA Ball.   

 

 

.

 

That's likely true, however, it's also likely untouchable. 😉

[storm319]

On 9/13/2021 at 7:44 AM, denkea said:

Back when one of the U.S. Opens at Pinehurst the balls most were using was the Titleist Balata (liquid center, rubber windings).  The next Open they had at Pinehurst most were using the Titleist Professional (solid center with rubber windings).  That resulted in approx 20 yards more diving distance on average. 

When the Pro V (Solid center, no more rubber windings) distance increased more.

 

It's DA Ball baby.  It's DA Ball.   

 

 

.

 

The Titleist Professional had a liquid core as well. The spin reduction of the Professional vs the Tour Balata was primarily due to the introduction of the cast thermoset urethane cover. Also, the difference in PGA Tour driving average from 1990 to 1996 which is a good sample for the switch from the Tour Balata to the Professional (both the highest played balls for their respective time periods) was a hand full of yards which would also include a number of other variables beyond the ball. 

[denkea]

4 hours ago, storm319 said:

Titleist Professional had a liquid core as well

Do NOT believe this is correct.  And the distance between two US Opens at Pinehurst WAS over 20 yards with the difference being the two different balls. 

 

As a matter of fact John Calabria who worked for Titleist tried to talk them into changing manufacturing to a Solid Core with windings.  Titleist didn't take and he went to MaxFli and developed the Revolution.  With the success of the Revolution Titleist took note and re-tooled to compete with Maxfli.  Thus the Professional.  

Edited September 14, 2021 by denkea