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

[ThinkingPlus]

6 minutes ago, denkea said:

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.  

Pulled this off the Titleist web site.  Seems like the Professional was still liquid core.  Of course Rick V. might be wrong as well despite being on the Team Titleist Staff in 2015.

 

Rick V., Team Titleist Staff
Duxbury, MA

 

TEAM TITLEIST STAFF

 

August 28, 2015 at 03:12 PM

Hey, Kelly.

Just wanted to share an image from an old Titleist print ad we came across. The Professional was a game-changer when it was first introduced in 1994. It featured the same liquid-center, wound construction found in the premium Titleist Tour Balata model that we manufactured at the time, but its cast urethane cover was a revolutionary breakthrough.

The Professional’s patented Elastomer cover still provided the same feel and greenside control that players desired, but it was substantially more durable. The Professional also had a more penetrating flight that made it longer off the tee for most players.

The success of the Professional paved the way for the introduction of the first Titleist Pro V1 golf ball in 2000. The Pro V1 advanced the urethane cover technology first seen in the Professional and it also differed from Professional by featuring a solid core. This new construction resulted in a ball that launched high but spun less off the tee for significantly greater distance, yet still maintained the feel and scoring spin needed for precision in the short game.

Fun to look back, Kelly. The Professional really was a great ball and pioneered the way for the performance we’re enjoying in today’s Pro V1 and Pro V1x.

Thanks,

Rick

 

 

[storm319]

4 hours ago, denkea said:

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.  

Believe it because the Professional did have a liquid core:

 

Next, the first US Open hosted at Pinehurst was in 1999 at which point very few if any balata balls were still in play on tour. Do you have actual driving distance data from the US Open by year? 
 

Lastly, the Titleist Professional was released in 1994 which was several years prior to the Maxfli Revolution which was released in 1998 so I think you may be confusing different models.

 

[grm24]

5 hours ago, ThinkingPlus said:

Pulled this off the Titleist web site.  Seems like the Professional was still liquid core.  Of course Rick V. might be wrong as well despite being on the Team Titleist Staff in 2015.

 

Rick V., Team Titleist Staff
Duxbury, MA

 

TEAM TITLEIST STAFF

 

August 28, 2015 at 03:12 PM

Hey, Kelly.

Just wanted to share an image from an old Titleist print ad we came across. The Professional was a game-changer when it was first introduced in 1994. It featured the same liquid-center, wound construction found in the premium Titleist Tour Balata model that we manufactured at the time, but its cast urethane cover was a revolutionary breakthrough.

The Professional’s patented Elastomer cover still provided the same feel and greenside control that players desired, but it was substantially more durable. The Professional also had a more penetrating flight that made it longer off the tee for most players.

The success of the Professional paved the way for the introduction of the first Titleist Pro V1 golf ball in 2000. The Pro V1 advanced the urethane cover technology first seen in the Professional and it also differed from Professional by featuring a solid core. This new construction resulted in a ball that launched high but spun less off the tee for significantly greater distance, yet still maintained the feel and scoring spin needed for precision in the short game.

Fun to look back, Kelly. The Professional really was a great ball and pioneered the way for the performance we’re enjoying in today’s Pro V1 and Pro V1x.

Thanks,

Rick

 

 

And to add to your great post is the picture below of the back of the Professional's box.

 

[ThinkingPlus]

1 minute ago, grm24 said:

And to add to your great post is the picture below of the back of the Professional's box.

 

Nice find!  Next level googling...

[Soloman1]

I thought the Tour Balata 100 was the pinnacle of golf balls. Then I played the Professional and thought it was the greatest thing since sliced bread.

[grm24]

21 minutes ago, ThinkingPlus said:

Nice find!  Next level googling...

Nah. I took it from an EBay ad!  😀

[Bad9]

11 hours ago, storm319 said:

Believe it because the Professional did have a liquid core:

 

Next, the first US Open hosted at Pinehurst was in 1999 at which point very few if any balata balls were still in play on tour. Do you have actual driving distance data from the US Open by year? 
 

Lastly, the Titleist Professional was released in 1994 which was several years prior to the Maxfli Revolution which was released in 1998 so I think you may be confusing different models.

 

 

Awesome. I believe we just witnessed an attempt to rewrite history to support their regressive opnion. 

[Shilgy]

On 9/13/2021 at 5:44 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.   

 

 

.

Cool story bro….incorrect but nicely written.

 

The first US Open at Pinehurst was in 1999. So the  Tour Balata was long gone. Professional in ‘99 and ProV thereafter

[Shilgy]

On 9/13/2021 at 5:44 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.   

 

 

.

Duplicate-need the delete function back.

Edited September 15, 2021 by Shilgy

[nsxguy]

On 9/15/2021 at 10:18 AM, Shilgy said:

Duplicate-need the delete function back.

 

Well, you could delete everything and then put "[deleted]".

 

I haven't figured out why but occasionally I'll hit the "Submit Reply" button and "nothing happens", i.e. the page doesn't refresh and show my post.

 

BUT, the site HAS taken my post but has not refreshed the page to show it.

 

When I don't see the page refreshed, I'll copy my entire post (just in case) and refresh the page myself.

 

More often than not my post IS there so no need to re-do. Doesn't seem there's any rhyme or reason to it though.

[Augster]

https://golf.com/gear/maximum-club-length-shorten-46-inches-new-local-rule/?amp=1
 

Looks like a new local rule is going into effect Jan 1. 

[2bGood]

11 hours ago, Augster said:

https://golf.com/gear/maximum-club-length-shorten-46-inches-new-local-rule/?amp=1
 

Looks like a new local rule is going into effect Jan 1. 

Mike Whan and Martin Slumbers sent me a thank you note for the idea last week. 

[oikos1]

7 hours ago, 2bGood said:

Mike Whan and Martin Slumbers sent me a thank you note for the idea last week. 

Lol.  For what?  Another feckless "distance" rule that lacks USGA authority (i.e. the buck stops where?), encourages tournaments to discriminate against certain players and adds another "rule" to further promote bifurcation. 

[b.helts]

44 minutes ago, oikos1 said:

Lol.  For what?  Another feckless "distance" rule that lacks USGA authority (i.e. the buck stops where?), encourages tournaments to discriminate against certain players and adds another "rule" to further promote bifurcation. 

🤮🤮

 

Lighten up! Cripes, your post reads like you wrote it while Mike Davis pulled your toenails out. 
 

some people’s children…….

[oikos1]

25 minutes ago, b.helts said:

🤮🤮

 

Lighten up! Cripes, your post reads like you wrote it while Mike Davis pulled your toenails out. 
 

some people’s children…….

Perhaps it's you who needs to lighten up.  Bringing family into things is a ****** move. 

[davep043]

1 hour ago, oikos1 said:

encourages tournaments to discriminate against certain players

I don't think you can call it discrimination when the rule applies to every player in the field.

[Nels55]

3 hours ago, oikos1 said:

Lol.  For what?  Another feckless "distance" rule that lacks USGA authority (i.e. the buck stops where?), encourages tournaments to discriminate against certain players and adds another "rule" to further promote bifurcation. 

 

2 hours ago, b.helts said:

🤮🤮

 

Lighten up! Cripes, your post reads like you wrote it while Mike Davis pulled your toenails out. 
 

some people’s children…….

That is uncalled for and rather rude.  Also oikos1 is not the only person who feels this way:

[b.helts]

38 minutes ago, Nels55 said:

 

That is uncalled for and rather rude.  Also oikos1 is not the only person who feels this way:

Is your claim that because people believe something that makes it inherently valid?

 

Rude? I didn’t think so, but we all March to different beats. 

[oikos1]

14 hours ago, davep043 said:

I don't think you can call it discrimination when the rule applies to every player in the field.

If a tournament committee knows there are several players in the local area who may enter the field at their tournament and the committee knows these players use drivers longer than 46 inches and the committee chooses to implement this rule, than yes, that would be discrimination.  Whether it actually happens or not is not the point, as it would be difficult to prove anyway.  The point is the ruling bodies created a rule within the rules that allow tournaments to do this.  I'm surprised you don't take issue with such a rule.

 

The R&A and the USGA have announced that a new Model Local Rule (MLR G-10) will be available beginning on 1 January 2022 to provide those running professional or elite amateur golf competitions with the option of limiting the maximum length of a golf club (excluding putters) to 46 inches.

 

Not only does that clearly allow for tournaments to discriminate at their discretion, it clearly is another path to the dreaded bifurcation.  So to my first point, why didn't the USGA and R&A demonstrate some cajones and make the rule across the board and accept the responsibility that comes with such a rule.  Instead, they pass the buck and make a model local rule that has the potential to discriminate, leads to bifurcation and a rule that even you claim won't impact most golfers anyway.  None of that makes any sense and ultimately makes a mockery of the vaunted rules of golf.

[Nels55]

13 hours ago, b.helts said:

Is your claim that because people believe something that makes it inherently valid?

 

Rude? I didn’t think so, but we all March to different beats. 

I understand both sides of the argument and I don't care much one way or the other.  I would say that just because the ruling bodies have ruled it does not mean that they are inherently right.  

 

My philosophy after many years of internet discussion some of which I regret is that if you disagree with a person's post then attack the post not the person.

[sui generis]

1 hour ago, oikos1 said:

None of that makes any sense and ultimately makes a mockery of the vaunted rules of golf.

 

You'll get nowhere hating on the Rules of Golf. While you can rant on and on, as you predictably do, the Rules won't hate you back. They'll love you just like they do everyone else. 🙄

[ThinkingPlus]

19 minutes ago, sui generis said:

 

You'll get nowhere hating on the Rules of Golf. While you can rant on and on, as you predictably do, the Rules won't hate you back. They'll love you just like they do everyone else. 🙄

Nice psychobabble BS.  LOL!

[oikos1]

48 minutes ago, sui generis said:

 

You'll get nowhere hating on the Rules of Golf. While you can rant on and on, as you predictably do, the Rules won't hate you back. They'll love you just like they do everyone else. 🙄

I really would love to see a thoughtful rebuttal to my three points in regards to the new driver length ruling but have yet to see anything of substance which only serves to validate them even more.  I suppose when you've got nothing you've got to throw something.

[sui generis]

6 minutes ago, oikos1 said:

I really would love to see a thoughtful rebuttal to my three points in regards to the new driver length ruling but have yet to see anything of substance which only serves to validate them even more.  I suppose when you've got nothing you've got to throw something.

 

Over the years, you've made it clear that in your opinion the Rules are stupid and the ruling bodies are incompetent. I don't see either issue that way. I'll leave it to the R&A and USGA to defend themselves.

[Cpk23]

How about they fix the courses on the tour circuit instead. A 5 handicap could shoot in the 70s on the majority of tour courses. That's unacceptable.

[nsxguy]

5 hours ago, oikos1 said:

I really would love to see a thoughtful rebuttal to my three points in regards to the new driver length ruling but have yet to see anything of substance which only serves to validate them even more.  I suppose when you've got nothing you've got to throw something.

 

Some get mad whenever the USGA/R&A make ANY rule they don't like.

 

Now the USGA/R&A give you a(nother) MODEL LOCAL RULE that your tournament committee may or may not invoke and you don't like that either.

 

And you go and "accuse" the committee of discrimination (or not) against players who use drivers longer than 46". And your basis for this is what ? The committee's always against you ? Or they don't know what they're doing either ?

 

Can I sell you a(nother) tin foil hat ? 

 

 

[Shilgy]

1 hour ago, Cpk23 said:

How about they fix the courses on the tour circuit instead. A 5 handicap could shoot in the 70s on the majority of tour courses. That's unacceptable.

Could? Perhaps one in a few hundred.  Would?  Using par 72 courses the average course rating from the tour tees is probably 76 in the 76 ball park.  Even without adding in tour conditions the 5 will break 81 about 20% of the time and will have an average score of about 84.  
 So maybe one in ten at best or so would break 80.

 

Compare that to the pros….they are eating up the course in Las Vegas this week.  Rating is 75.7/143

 

 

Its not the courses that enable these guys to fly it 300. The only legit way to roll it back at all is with the ball.  And they seem mighty reluctant to that.

[sui generis]

13 minutes ago, Shilgy said:

The only legit way to roll it back at all is with the ball.  And they seem mighty reluctant to that.

 

I agree that the inevitable "obsolescence" of classic old courses could be mitigated with ball technology. However, nobody, and I mean nobody, would like it.

 

I'm afraid that wonderful old courses soon will not be seen on primetime TV. We'll be stuck with flashy modern courses. Miles and miles and miles of concrete cart paths will streak by multimillion dollar McMansions. The greens will Stimp at 18 and there'll not be a blade of grass out of place. After all, it's just a TV show.

 

The upside is that those lovely old tracks will still be around for us mere mortals and our kids. 🙂

[2bGood]

11 hours ago, oikos1 said:

If a tournament committee knows there are several players in the local area who may enter the field at their tournament and the committee knows these players use drivers longer than 46 inches and the committee chooses to implement this rule, than yes, that would be discrimination.  Whether it actually happens or not is not the point, as it would be difficult to prove anyway.  The point is the ruling bodies created a rule within the rules that allow tournaments to do this.  I'm surprised you don't take issue with such a rule.

 

The R&A and the USGA have announced that a new Model Local Rule (MLR G-10) will be available beginning on 1 January 2022 to provide those running professional or elite amateur golf competitions with the option of limiting the maximum length of a golf club (excluding putters) to 46 inches.

 

Not only does that clearly allow for tournaments to discriminate at their discretion, it clearly is another path to the dreaded bifurcation.  So to my first point, why didn't the USGA and R&A demonstrate some cajones and make the rule across the board and accept the responsibility that comes with such a rule.  Instead, they pass the buck and make a model local rule that has the potential to discriminate, leads to bifurcation and a rule that even you claim won't impact most golfers anyway.  None of that makes any sense and ultimately makes a mockery of the vaunted rules of golf.

Saying a local rule is discrimination is a stretch. If you want to dig in on that argument many local rules in theory favour one type of player over another. Music, Measuring devices E5 all jump to mind. Heck if you want to go down the rabbit hole - course design, pin location and tee location could all be discrimination according to your argument. 

 

Edited October 15, 2021 by 2bGood

[Shilgy]

3 hours ago, sui generis said:

 

I agree that the inevitable "obsolescence" of classic old courses could be mitigated with ball technology. However, nobody, and I mean nobody, would like it.

 

I'm afraid that wonderful old courses soon will not be seen on primetime TV. We'll be stuck with flashy modern courses. Miles and miles and miles of concrete cart paths will streak by multimillion dollar McMansions. The greens will Stimp at 18 and there'll not be a blade of grass out of place. After all, it's just a TV show.

 

The upside is that those lovely old tracks will still be around for us mere mortals and our kids. 🙂

Most of th courses you speak of will never see a tour event, in spite of your constant use of the phrase denigrating professional golf as just a tv show.

 

And many of them have as much charm as the courses you swear to love.  The new are not all subdivision course built to save homes.

 

 

And you know it.