Jump to content

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


2bGood
 Share

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, Shilgy said:

denigrating professional golf as just a tv show

 

Ha, what is any professional sport (apart, perhaps, from chess, et al) in the last 50 years anything but a TV show? How on earth would old white men know what cars to buy or which pills to take? 😉

 

But, I agree, dialing back the ball would keep the old courses on TV. Really, who'd rather look at that silly thing on TV this week than a Ross or MacKenzie?

  • Like 2

Knowledge of the Rules is part of the applied skill set which a player must use to play a round of competitive golf.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, sui generis said:

 

Ha, what is any professional sport (apart, perhaps, from chess, et al) in the last 50 years anything but a TV show? How on earth would old white men know what cars to buy or which pills to take? 😉

 

But, I agree, dialing back the ball would keep the old courses on TV. Really, who'd rather look at that silly thing on TV this week than a Ross or MacKenzie?

Agreed…..although, part of the charm of some of the old courses is there smaller footprint.  There is more of a feeling of intimacy, almost like playing in a backyard so to speak.   I do think that some of the moderns create that feel and still have the longer yardage needed in todays game.  The Coore Crenshaw creations in particular evoke the old course feeling….at least to me….in a longer track.  I do believe a lot of the feeling of the old courses is our familiarity.  And being the first so to speak.  Another part is the use of the land in the earlier courses necessitated by the equipment of the day.  Little earth moved so they “fit” with the landscape better than most moderns.

  • Like 1

Callaway Epic Speed 9* Fujikura Platinum Speeder 4S

Titleist TS3 strong 3 wood 13.5* PX Hzrdus. Smoke 75s

Titleist 818H2 19* hybrid Tensei Blue

Titleist TS3 23* Tensei Blue

New Level PF-2 5-PW DG105 S300

Taylormade MG2 50* DG S300

Callaway Jaws MD5 56* & 60* DGS200

Scotty Cameron Newport Special Select 34” with flow neck by LaMont

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are three proposals, 46 inch max is left up to local rules committee.

The other two  changes are  in testing for clubs and balls, those proposals are with the manufacturers now. 

The changes most likely will make current equipment  Non Conforming, and 

expensive for players that will change equipment to play conforming in local ,state, and regional tournaments.

As always, changes have ramifications,

and these are  another example a solution looking for a problem.

 



Play Golf.....Play Blades......Play Something Else.....Just Go Play.....

4 HC
Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, puttingmatt said:

expensive for players that will change equipment to play conforming in local ,state, and regional tournaments.

 

 

Yeah, it'll cost a bundle to cut an inch off the butt of your driver. 🙄

 

44 minutes ago, puttingmatt said:

these are  another example a solution looking for a problem.

 

And, you haven't been paying attention over the past 25 years. 😶

Knowledge of the Rules is part of the applied skill set which a player must use to play a round of competitive golf.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, puttingmatt said:

There are three proposals, 46 inch max is left up to local rules committee.

The other two  changes are  in testing for clubs and balls, those proposals are with the manufacturers now. 

The changes most likely will make current equipment  Non Conforming, and 

expensive for players that will change equipment to play conforming in local ,state, and regional tournaments.

As always, changes have ramifications,

and these are  another example a solution looking for a problem.

 

 

I haven't read about those "other" changes so I have no idea why you (appear to) think current clubs will become non-conforming.

 

Have a link ?

 

 

1 hour ago, sui generis said:

 

Yeah, it'll cost a bundle to cut an inch off the butt of your driver. 🙄

 

 

And, you haven't been paying attention over the past 25 years. 😶

 

To be fair(?), puttingmatt made reference to "expensive" after referring to "other" proposals in the hands of the manufacturers (whatever that means) vis-a-vis to equipment (presumably clubs and balls) that may make current equipment non-conforming.

 

Hopefully he will explain. :classic_wink:

 

Callaway Epic Flash SZ Tour AD TP

Ping G425 14.5 Fairway Tour AD TP

Adams Idea Pro 20* Aldila Stiff

Ping G20, 5-PW, DGS300 Yellow Dot

Ping Glide Forged, 48, 52, 60, DGS300

Cally PM Grind 56 KBS Tour 115

Odyssey OG 7 (Today)

Titleist ProV1x

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I found this:

 

https://www.noga.org/2021/02/02/the-usga-and-ra-announce-golf-equipment-research-topics-and-proposed-equipment-standards-changes/

 

I don't really like what I read (that the USGA feels distance is a problem in all levels of the game).  It goes on to talk about changing testing of balls and equipment.

 

If I was a manufacturer I wouldn't be making a whole lot of anything with a long lead time that might be impacted by future rules.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, bekgolf said:

I found this:

 

https://www.noga.org/2021/02/02/the-usga-and-ra-announce-golf-equipment-research-topics-and-proposed-equipment-standards-changes/

 

I don't really like what I read (that the USGA feels distance is a problem in all levels of the game).  It goes on to talk about changing testing of balls and equipment.

 

If I was a manufacturer I wouldn't be making a whole lot of anything with a long lead time that might be impacted by future rules.

Thank you for the link, as you read you will come across the manufacturer proposals,

Including what appears to be changes on testing procedures. I suspect the devil is in the details.  Where there is smoke, a fire will  follow.



Play Golf.....Play Blades......Play Something Else.....Just Go Play.....

4 HC
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, bekgolf said:

I found this:

 

https://www.noga.org/2021/02/02/the-usga-and-ra-announce-golf-equipment-research-topics-and-proposed-equipment-standards-changes/

 

I don't really like what I read (that the USGA feels distance is a problem in all levels of the game).  It goes on to talk about changing testing of balls and equipment.

 

If I was a manufacturer I wouldn't be making a whole lot of anything with a long lead time that might be impacted by future rules.

The OEMs are likely filling their magazines with lawsuits ready to fire when the real rule changes hit (if they ever do).  That's  when things get really interesting.  Local rules just put the tours at litigation risk, not the RBs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, puttingmatt said:

Where there is smoke, a fire will  follow.

I think its fair to once again quote the stated goal of all of these proposals:

Quote

This review would consider whether any existing specifications should be adjusted or any new specifications created to help mitigate continuing distance increases. It would not consider revising the overall specifications to produce substantial reductions in hitting distances at all levels of the game

They're trying to halt further distance increases from equipment changes, not reduce distance for all levels of the game.  We'll see what comes out of it.

3 minutes ago, ThinkingPlus said:

The OEMs are likely filling their magazines with lawsuits ready to fire when the real rule changes hit (if they ever do).

The OEMs have been included in all of the discussions so far.  I'm going to bet that most of them will be on board with whatever changes happen, and that the changes will give the OEMs plenty of time to adapt appropriately.  Again, time will tell.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, puttingmatt said:

Thank you for the link, as you read you will come across the manufacturer proposals,

Including what appears to be changes on testing procedures. I suspect the devil is in the details.  Where there is smoke, a fire will  follow.

 

Ummmmm,,,,,,,, Smoke does NOT cause fire; fire causes smoke. 🙃

 

Oh my,,,,,,, the USGA/R&A are doing research and including the manufacturers into the discussion.

 

Sky Is Falling GIFs | Tenor

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Callaway Epic Flash SZ Tour AD TP

Ping G425 14.5 Fairway Tour AD TP

Adams Idea Pro 20* Aldila Stiff

Ping G20, 5-PW, DGS300 Yellow Dot

Ping Glide Forged, 48, 52, 60, DGS300

Cally PM Grind 56 KBS Tour 115

Odyssey OG 7 (Today)

Titleist ProV1x

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, davep043 said:

I think its fair to once again quote the stated goal of all of these proposals:

They're trying to halt further distance increases from equipment changes, not reduce distance for all levels of the game.  We'll see what comes out of it.

The OEMs have been included in all of the discussions so far.  I'm going to bet that most of them will be on board with whatever changes happen, and that the changes will give the OEMs plenty of time to adapt appropriately.  Again, time will 

 

Agreed, Time will tell.

And the proposals are a bit more reaching than just the 46 inch driver length. 

Edited by puttingmatt


Play Golf.....Play Blades......Play Something Else.....Just Go Play.....

4 HC
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, bekgolf said:

I found this:

 

https://www.noga.org/2021/02/02/the-usga-and-ra-announce-golf-equipment-research-topics-and-proposed-equipment-standards-changes/

 

I don't really like what I read (that the USGA feels distance is a problem in all levels of the game).  It goes on to talk about changing testing of balls and equipment.

 

If I was a manufacturer I wouldn't be making a whole lot of anything with a long lead time that might be impacted by future rules.

Yes, it is quite a read , 

 



Play Golf.....Play Blades......Play Something Else.....Just Go Play.....

4 HC
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/14/2021 at 5:20 PM, nsxguy said:

 

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. :classic_rolleyes:

 

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 ? :classic_biggrin:cool.gif

 

 

I fail to see any reason why a "committee" would ever need to use this rule unless it was to discriminate against a player who was successful using a driver longer than 46 inches. 

 

Do you have a different reason why a committee would ever need to use this rule?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...