Jump to content
2024 RBC Heritage WITB photos ×

USGA and R&A announce proposal to limit golf ball performance for elite level competition


elwhippy

Recommended Posts

24 minutes ago, Simpsonia said:

 

 

So that begs the question, if 6 yards won't affect you at all, how could 9 yards possibly have any effect at all on a pro's scores, let alone "save the game of golf" as the USGA is messaging this move? And, if it won't affect amateurs, and it won't affect pros, then why do it at all? 

Strange times in golf......

I thought that the PGAT and golf in general was great in 2023.

 

Yet, the USGA, RA, LIV golf is telling me Golf is broken......

 

~Strange times.😎

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, SkiSchoolPro said:

So would you have been ok if the USGA simply put a cap at today's technology and prohibited changes/inprovements going forward? 

Did you like golf 5, 10, 20, etc years ago? What if they capped the tech back then?

 

Fwiw, I think capping tech would result in less R & D, less advertising about newer and better and more commodity like pricing. Most players would end up spending less on equipment and those using 5+ year old equipment wouldn't be at a disadvantage. Players could still practice, train and improve their abilities like they have in basketball and other sports. How many ads for basketballs do you see during an NBA game (or ads for footballs during those broadcasts)? Pretty sure it's fewer than golf ball ads, but there are still shoe and other commercials. How many NBA, NFL & pro Soccer/Football players get paid to endorse a particular ball? Not sure about tennis players...

 

It has been almost completely capped for 20+ years now with the exception of a couple of smaller holes like shaft weight, and hollow iron heads.

  • Like 2

Swing hard in case you hit it!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, klbcec said:

Great article!  I don't see why this is a big deal.

 

https://golf.com/instruction/how-many-yards-lose-rollback-usga/?amp=1

 

The USGA's chart and these articles are downright dishonest and misleading. Driving a golf ball is just a physics question. Clubhead speed, spin, launch angle, etc. Framing the impact as pros, elite, average amateur, recreational, etc. is some weird babble considering they should charting out what various launch conditions, e.g., spin, angle of attack, launch angle, etc., will produce with various driver clubhead speeds, e.g., 90 - 100 - 110 - 120. The fact that they haven't suggests either they have no idea (in part because their proposed new tour caliber ball does not exist yet) or they know the data is not as rosy as their hand-waiving "oh, you'll just lose a handful of yards" as an amateur framing. A+ for their PR folks though.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, clevited said:

 

I am going to push back on this quite a bit.  You said the same people wanting to use conforming equipment are "upset that the governing bodies are doing their job".  They are upset because A) there is objectively no problem and B) the ruling bodies spent millions, created all kinds of hoopla and controversy, making big claims about the golf industry and how sustainable it is and then do what?  Practically nothing.  The principle of that alone is absolutely rage inducing for a lot of people.  Why go through all of that trouble, cost, stirring of the pot just to accomplish nothing that pertains to your stated goals?  This governing body has objectively botched many attempts to control the tour when the tour has no interest in being controlled.  The distrust in the ruling bodies is due to their out of touch endeavors like anchoring ban, groove rules and 46 inch MLR and now this. 

Help me understand. Do you take issue with the testing methodology of the golf ball as a whole, or the input parameters they are using for the test? As I've explained, the purpose of using the club speed/ launch/spin parameters aren't arbitrary. They are supposed to reflect the launch conditions of the "typical" longest hitter on tour.

LTDx LS 11.5* - Tensei White 65X

G430 Max 15* - Ping Chrome 75S

King Tec Hybrid 19* - MMT 80S

T150 4-PW - PX 6.5

SM8 50F, 54S, 60M

White Hot OG 7CH

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, rsballer10 said:

Help me understand. Do you take issue with the testing methodology of the golf ball as a whole, or the input parameters they are using for the test? As I've explained, the purpose of using the club speed/ launch/spin parameters aren't arbitrary. They are supposed to reflect the launch conditions of the "typical" longest hitter on tour.

 

Did you mean to aim this question at someone else?  I wasn't commenting on their test methodology and such.

  • Like 1

Swing hard in case you hit it!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, clevited said:

 

Did you mean to aim this question at someone else?  I wasn't commenting on their test methodology and such.

Nope, it was directed at you, just trying to understand people's frustrations. Because what's in question here is the testing method for conforming golf balls, as that's what is being changed. Is it because their decisions in the past have been poor, so all future rule changes are treated with distrust? Is it because the USGA lost credibility long before this decision? 

 

I guess I'm just not understanding the LEVEL of disgust people have for this rule, when objectively this appears to be more of an update to an existing standard. I think their communication could have been better explaining the change, as it feels very marginal.

  • Like 1

LTDx LS 11.5* - Tensei White 65X

G430 Max 15* - Ping Chrome 75S

King Tec Hybrid 19* - MMT 80S

T150 4-PW - PX 6.5

SM8 50F, 54S, 60M

White Hot OG 7CH

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, rsballer10 said:

Nope, it was directed at you, just trying to understand people's frustrations. Because what's in question here is the testing method for conforming golf balls, as that's what is being changed. Is it because their decisions in the past have been poor, so all future rule changes are treated with distrust? Is it because the USGA lost credibility long before this decision? 

 

I guess I'm just not understanding the LEVEL of disgust people have for this rule, when objectively this appears to be more of an update to an existing standard. I think their communication could have been better explaining the change, as it feels very marginal.

 

Right - one of two things is true. Either this is going to make a difference to people, in which case they should have to do a much better job of explaining why they wanted to make the difference. Less of this wishy washy we're doing it for the good of the game. Specifics. Or, this is not going to make a difference, in which case what's the point? Neither of these is good. IMO. 

 

Given that it's only about 4% change that they're talking about, I lean pretty far in the won't make a difference bucket. I may need to adjust my line off the tee in some spots, but for the most part, it's going to be like playing when it's cold vs when it's hot. So why bother? They've made a lot of people upset to change basically nothing. It's not like the USGA have goodwill to spare.

  • Like 3

Ping G430 LST 9° Diamana white 63x
Ping G410 LST 3 wood Diamana Thump x
Srixon ZX Utility 19 C-taper S+

Srixon ZX7 4-AW C-taper S+

Vokey SM9 54F and 58C

Odyssey Eleven Tour-Lined Slant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, gvogel said:

Anti big OEM's?  Not in the least.  I really like Titleist drivers, hybrids, irons and wedges.  I play exclusively Titleist balls.  I think that Titleist does a great job, and are entitled to make a lot of money.

 

But on this issue, the distance that elite players have gained as a result of equipment, I side with the golf course architects.  And if the USGA is going to roll the ball back for everyone, I am will to suffer a little loss in distance.

 

I played a good bit of hickory golf up to five years ago, so I understand distance limitations due to equipment (compared to current equipment).  I learned to adjust.  I also learned that the hickory game is best played on shorter golf courses, so I have that mindset when a roll back is proposed.

You apparently missed the various info posted in this thread that has debunked all the talking points the pro rollbackers having been claiming.

 

The USGA equipment guy admitted the distance gains they have seen on the PGA tour are from the golfer themselves and not the the equipment. So as has been stated by many of us it’s the golfer being better athletes not the equipment.

 

you missed the info from the superintendents 18 year study disputing the lengthing of courses and the data Titleist posted in their stament that courses in recent years are being build at about 6500 yards. Plus swing speed has was unchanged from 2019-2021 and has dropped in 2022-2023

 

and missed the USGA sharing some test data that showed a driver distance of 221 lost 11 yards and only went 210 yards so you in the slower swing speed group will be impacted significantly 

 

31 minutes ago, SkiSchoolPro said:

So would you have been ok if the USGA simply put a cap at today's technology and prohibited changes/inprovements going forward? 

Did you like golf 5, 10, 20, etc years ago? What if they capped the tech back then?

 

Fwiw, I think capping tech would result in less R & D, less advertising about newer and better and more commodity like pricing. Most players would end up spending less on equipment and those using 5+ year old equipment wouldn't be at a disadvantage. Players could still practice, train and improve their abilities like they have in basketball and other sports. How many ads for basketballs do you see during an NBA game (or ads for footballs during those broadcasts)? Pretty sure it's fewer than golf ball ads, but there are still shoe and other commercials. How many NBA, NFL & pro Soccer/Football players get paid to endorse a particular ball? Not sure about tennis players...

there is a cap for equipment and balls been in olive for over 2 decades. There’s been no proposal from anyone to increase any of it to make the ball go further. So they didn’t need to put a cap they could have just kept it. Data supports that there hasn’t been significant distance increases like they claim.

 

You claim about capping and reducing r&d costs and advertising is false. There is a good chuck of money that goes to both areas for each oem with marketing getting more money than r&d.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Ty_Webb said:

 

Right - one of two things is true. Either this is going to make a difference to people, in which case they should have to do a much better job of explaining why they wanted to make the difference. Less of this wishy washy we're doing it for the good of the game. Specifics. Or, this is not going to make a difference, in which case what's the point? Neither of these is good. IMO. 

 

Given that it's only about 4% change that they're talking about, I lean pretty far in the won't make a difference bucket. I may need to adjust my line off the tee in some spots, but for the most part, it's going to be like playing when it's cold vs when it's hot. So why bother? They've made a lot of people upset to change basically nothing. It's not like the USGA have goodwill to spare.

That's a fair point. Was there any change they could make that WOULDN'T upset the golfing public? 

LTDx LS 11.5* - Tensei White 65X

G430 Max 15* - Ping Chrome 75S

King Tec Hybrid 19* - MMT 80S

T150 4-PW - PX 6.5

SM8 50F, 54S, 60M

White Hot OG 7CH

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, rsballer10 said:

That's a fair point. Was there any change they could make that WOULDN'T upset the golfing public? 

 

There was one thing they could do that wouldn't upset the golfing public, but it's not a change. It's nothing, which is, IMO, what they should have done.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Ping G430 LST 9° Diamana white 63x
Ping G410 LST 3 wood Diamana Thump x
Srixon ZX Utility 19 C-taper S+

Srixon ZX7 4-AW C-taper S+

Vokey SM9 54F and 58C

Odyssey Eleven Tour-Lined Slant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, rsballer10 said:

Nope, it was directed at you, just trying to understand people's frustrations. Because what's in question here is the testing method for conforming golf balls, as that's what is being changed. Is it because their decisions in the past have been poor, so all future rule changes are treated with distrust? Is it because the USGA lost credibility long before this decision? 

 

I guess I'm just not understanding the LEVEL of disgust people have for this rule, when objectively this appears to be more of an update to an existing standard. I think their communication could have been better explaining the change, as it feels very marginal.

 

I am not questioning their testing methodology, that doesn't have anything to do with the arguement I made.  My argument is they claim all these big claims about the golf industry like there is too much emphasis on distance, obsolete golf courses, courses "forced" to get longer and no real-estate for that, no water, costs too high etc etc.  They want more skill in the game etc.  They do this for years and years and in recent years ramped it up like they were finally going to do something about it (which most people didn't/don't want and don't believe there is a problem to fix).  Threads like this have been around for years and debated the necessity of a roll back but, what was also debated was, if something is to be done, what objectively solves those subjective "problems"?  Well, the RBs finally decide to do something and it amounts to effectively nothing, while also being something.  A something the majority of people don't want.  They have now lived up to their reputation yet again, simultaneously disappointing the pro roll back players and anti roll back players.  Those of us against the roll back are pissed they did anything at all as we don't believe there is a problem with the game whatsoever.  The pro roll back players don't think they did enough (which objectively they did not).

 

The frustration is with an obviously incompetent and out of touch ruling body that cannot seem to do anything right and instead waste millions that in my opinion should have been spent on GROWING THE GAME, not this idiotic distance crusade.

  • Like 4

Swing hard in case you hit it!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, clevited said:

 

I am going to push back on this quite a bit.  You said the same people wanting to use conforming equipment are "upset that the governing bodies are doing their job".  They are upset because A) there is objectively no problem and B) the ruling bodies spent millions, created all kinds of hoopla and controversy, making big claims about the golf industry and how sustainable it is and then do what?  Practically nothing.  The principle of that alone is absolutely rage inducing for a lot of people.  Why go through all of that trouble, cost, stirring of the pot just to accomplish nothing that pertains to your stated goals?  This governing body has objectively botched many attempts to control the tour when the tour has no interest in being controlled.  The distrust in the ruling bodies is due to their out of touch endeavors like anchoring ban, groove rules and 46 inch MLR and now this. 

Obviously members of clubs that have shouldered the tremendous costs of course modifications would vigorously disagree with your point A. 

 

Yeah I get you say it was a choice, which is your opinion, but many feel differently. 

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, BlackDiamondPar5 said:

Obviously members of clubs that have shouldered the tremendous costs of course modifications would vigorously disagree with your point A. 

 

Yeah I get you say it was a choice, which is your opinion, but many feel differently. 

 

What courses have done this? My club in England added some new tees a few years ago - that was paid for as part of the usual winter program. Cost was not high.

  • Like 3

Ping G430 LST 9° Diamana white 63x
Ping G410 LST 3 wood Diamana Thump x
Srixon ZX Utility 19 C-taper S+

Srixon ZX7 4-AW C-taper S+

Vokey SM9 54F and 58C

Odyssey Eleven Tour-Lined Slant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, clevited said:

 

I am going to push back on this quite a bit.  You said the same people wanting to use conforming equipment are "upset that the governing bodies are doing their job".  They are upset because A) there is objectively no problem and B) the ruling bodies spent millions, created all kinds of hoopla and controversy, making big claims about the golf industry and how sustainable it is and then do what?  Practically nothing.  The principle of that alone is absolutely rage inducing for a lot of people.  Why go through all of that trouble, cost, stirring of the pot just to accomplish nothing that pertains to your stated goals?  This governing body has objectively botched many attempts to control the tour when the tour has no interest in being controlled.  The distrust in the ruling bodies is due to their out of touch endeavors like anchoring ban, groove rules and 46 inch MLR and now this. 

I will give a counter point. 

 

Distance at the top level was going to keep get longer. IF you believe that there is such a thing as players hitting it too long in golf then if was have not gotten to that point yet, we were going to get there soon. They put the lid on that. The solutions will have little effect on the average golfer (good), but a fairly large effect a on the very fast swingers, which there are more and more of. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, 2bGood said:

The cost is the land typically. 

 

Right, but outside of Augusta, what clubs have acquired land to lengthen? To ThinkingPlus's point, I'm struggling to feel too bad about Augusta. Most of their members could probably pay for what they've done on their own. I wonder how many people have resigned their Augusta membership because they couldn't cover the assessments.

  • Like 3

Ping G430 LST 9° Diamana white 63x
Ping G410 LST 3 wood Diamana Thump x
Srixon ZX Utility 19 C-taper S+

Srixon ZX7 4-AW C-taper S+

Vokey SM9 54F and 58C

Odyssey Eleven Tour-Lined Slant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, rsballer10 said:

Help me understand. Do you take issue with the testing methodology of the golf ball as a whole, or the input parameters they are using for the test? As I've explained, the purpose of using the club speed/ launch/spin parameters aren't arbitrary. They are supposed to reflect the launch conditions of the "typical" longest hitter on tour.

 

Not who you directed the question at, but I personally think they missed the boat on the new restrictions.

 

I've been saying since they first started talking about rolling back the ball that they should have changed the procedure as follows:

- INCREASE the total distance to 330 yards from today's 317. 

- Launch conditions should be more like 185 mph ballspeed, 12-13* launch angle, 2000 spin.

 

The PR problem largely disappears because they can SAY that they aren't making in the ball shorter while in actual fact they are at the very top end. The ball MFRs can then spend all their R&D figuring out how to optimize the aerodynamics to meet the test and still have people hit it farther.

Ping G430 LST 10.5* : Ventus Red TR 7S

Titleist TSR2 4W : Tensei 1K Black 85-S

Mizuno CLK 19*: Ventus Blue HB-8S

Srixon ZX Utility #4: Nippon Modus3 125-S

Wilson Staff CB 5-PW : Nippon Modus3 125-S

Cleveland Zipcore 50, 54, 58: Nippon Modus3 125-S 

Piretti Potenza 370g : Breakthrough Technology Stability Shaft - 34"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An organization for the masses?  This is about the USGA and the R&A and their future investments. Which is ironic as these are amateur focused organizations.  Interfering in private enterprise is UN-american..... the PGA can do what they want!   For all our lives we have seen golf played by one set of rules for ALL players at all levels.  Where as the concept of parity was derived by the handicapping systems put in place.   Simply, the 12 handicapper could then compete against a tour pro etc.   No other sport is like this:  baseball/football for example has rules for all levels of competition and the reason being is the size of the players.  But golf the common factor is equipment and in this case the BALL.   There is a financial reason for this. But allow me to express before I state why.   Golf has reach a convergence of sort. A moment in time where technology in engineering and manufacturing has met up with the analysis in the bio mechanics of the swing along with the sheer athleticism of the player: the strength of the player, seeing the correct way to make impact, with the very best in equipment.  A perfect storm, if I may use the idiom.

 

The USGA and R@A make BILLIONS from hosting the very best tournaments to showcase the very best talent.  But continue to want to use golf venues that although have stood the test of time are simply out matched for this perfect storm. The USGA has money invested in these courses over the next 1/4 century.  Yes, there are ways to take a 400 yard hole and redesign it so that a player would be required to 5 iron off the tee rendering the driver of no value but are you going to tell Merion, Oakland Hills, Oakmont, Pebble Beach, Olympic et al ( all courses to be used during these times) that they have to make these changes?

 

Thus it is not about the game.... its about their future earnings!

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Habitual Flipper said:

 

I agree with this and thought the last comments by Sasho made a lot of sense. Specifically:

 

1. Tour average speed is currently 115 mph give or take. Year 1 of this change, he theorizes tour average speed will increase to 120 mph. It isn't currently 115 mph because of physical limitations but has more to do with that is the optimal average speed required to play courses. Most tour professionals will just swing harder to get them to their intended landing zone. 

 

2. The "problem" that is trying to be solved is poorly defined. I agree with Sasho when he says the best way to go about making a change would have been to define the problem in detail, develop a prototype, test the prototype, and use the empirical data to see if the prototype (i.e., new ball) has solved your defined problem. 

 

Exactly.  Even though I am 100% against any kind of roll back, I could appreciate defining and solving their subjective problems intelligently and completely.  Sasho might be my long lost brother.  We seem to be on the same wavelength with this entire thing.  That podcast really stroked my ego (that definitely doesn't need more stroking haha).

  • Like 3

Swing hard in case you hit it!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Growing the game has been mentioned a few times in this thread.  Does anyone have any figures on how accessibility in metropolitan markets, specifically adding courses in those market?

 

the limiting factor to growing the game in my market is cost and availability or inventory of tee times to play.  Cost has increased to $70-250 per round during peak season (not counting your resorts like gamble or bandon) at any local muni or public course.  Most tee times after 3 pm are booked the day they are able to be booked.  Same for weekends, only everything is generally booked solid till about 6 pm, which would t leave you time to finish 18.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did anyone else get a little bit of a chill with the foreshadowing about them tackling the driver next? They call it “driver creep”, but I suspect they’re going to significantly change the COR around the drivers. That may have even more of an impact than the ball.
 

M

Titleist TSi3 driver AV Raw White 65g 

Titleist TSi3 3W AV Raw White 65g

Titleist TSi3 3H  AV Raw HY 75g

PXG Gen 5, 0311T 6-AW, 0311P 4-5

Taylormade MG4 54*

Taylormade MG4 58*

Argolf Putter

Vice Pro-Soft balls

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, 2bGood said:

I will give a counter point. 

 

Distance at the top level was going to keep get longer. IF you believe that there is such a thing as players hitting it too long in golf then if was have not gotten to that point yet, we were going to get there soon. They put the lid on that. The solutions will have little effect on the average golfer (good), but a fairly large effect a on the very fast swingers, which there are more and more of. 

Distance at the top level hasn’t gone up. Top end has remained the same with the current ball for 2 decades. The USGA and R&A have said as much because they only reference average distance. Average  distance has increased on tour by 10 yards because the slower older players have been replaced with the younger, stronger, faster golfer. Theres nothing that indicates the top end will increase with the current standards.

 

The USGA’s own equipment guru stated that the distance increase seen on tour is from the golfer not the equipment or ball.

 

There was already lid on it. They weren’t trying to prevent some kind of new technology or faster ball.

  • Like 2
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.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Our picks

    • 2024 RBC Heritage - Discussion and Links to Photos
      Please put any questions or comments here
       
       
       
       
       
      General Albums
       
      2024 RBC Heritage - Monday #1
      2024 RBC Heritage - Monday #2
       
       
       
       
      WITB Albums
       
      Justin Thomas - WITB - 2024 RBC Heritage
      Justin Rose - WITB - 2024 RBC Heritage
      Chandler Phillips - WITB - 2024 RBC Heritage
      Nick Dunlap - WITB - 2024 RBC Heritage
      Thomas Detry - WITB - 2024 RBC Heritage
      Austin Eckroat - WITB - 2024 RBC Heritage
       
       
       
       
       
      Pullout Albums
       
      Wyndham Clark's Odyssey putter - 2024 RBC Heritage
      JT's new Cameron putter - 2024 RBC Heritage
      Justin Thomas testing new Titleist 2 wood - 2024 RBC Heritage
      Cameron putters - 2024 RBC Heritage
      Odyssey putter with triple track alignment aid - 2024 RBC Heritage
      Scotty Cameron The Blk Box putting alignment aid/training aid - 2024 RBC Heritage
       
       
       
       
       
       
        • Like
      • 7 replies
    • 2024 Masters - Discussion and Links to Photos
      Huge shoutout to our member Stinger2irons for taking and posting photos from Augusta
       
       
      Tuesday
       
      The Masters 2024 – Pt. 1
      The Masters 2024 – Pt. 2
      The Masters 2024 – Pt. 3
      The Masters 2024 – Pt. 4
      The Masters 2024 – Pt. 5
      The Masters 2024 – Pt. 6
      The Masters 2024 – Pt. 7
      The Masters 2024 – Pt. 8
      The Masters 2024 – Pt. 9
      The Masters 2024 – Pt. 10
       
       
       
        • Thanks
        • Like
      • 14 replies
    • Rory McIlroy testing a new TaylorMade "PROTO" 4-iron – 2024 Valero Texas Open
      Rory McIlroy testing a new TaylorMade "PROTO" 4-iron – 2024 Valero Texas Open
        • Thanks
        • Like
      • 92 replies
    • 2024 Valero Texas Open - Discussion and Links to Photos
      Please put any questions or Comments here
       
       
       
      General Albums
       
      2024 Valero Texas Open - Monday #1
      2024 Valero Texas Open - Tuesday #1
       
       
       
       
       
      WITB Albums
       
      Ben Taylor - WITB - 2024 Valero Texas Open
      Paul Barjon - WITB - 2024 Valero Texas Open
      Joe Sullivan - WITB - 2024 Valero Texas Open
      Wilson Furr - WITB - 2024 Valero Texas Open
      Ben Willman - SoTex PGA Section Champ - WITB - 2024 Valero Texas Open
      Jimmy Stanger - WITB - 2024 Valero Texas Open
      Rickie Fowler - WITB - 2024 Valero Texas Open
      Harrison Endycott - WITB - 2024 Valero Texas Open
      Vince Whaley - WITB - 2024 Valero Texas Open
      Kevin Chappell - WITB - 2024 Valero Texas Open
      Christian Bezuidenhout - WITB (mini) - 2024 Valero Texas Open
      Scott Gutschewski - WITB - 2024 Valero Texas Open
      Michael S. Kim WITB – 2024 Valero Texas Open
       
       
       
      Pullout Albums
       
      Cameron putter - 2024 Valero Texas Open
      Ben Taylor with new Titleist TRS 2 wood - 2024 Valero Texas Open
      Swag cover - 2024 Valero Texas Open
      Greyson Sigg's custom Cameron putter - 2024 Valero Texas Open
      Davis Riley's custom Cameron putter - 2024 Valero Texas Open
      Josh Teater's custom Cameron putter - 2024 Valero Texas Open
      Hzrdus T1100 is back - - 2024 Valero Texas Open
      Mark Hubbard testing ported Titleist irons – 2024 Valero Texas Open
      Tyson Alexander testing new Titleist TRS 2 wood - 2024 Valero Texas Open
      Hideki Matsuyama's custom Cameron putter - 2024 Valero Texas Open
      Cobra putters - 2024 Valero Texas Open
      Joel Dahmen WITB – 2024 Valero Texas Open
      Axis 1 broomstick putter - 2024 Valero Texas Open
      Rory McIlroy testing a new TaylorMade "PROTO" 4-iron – 2024 Valero Texas Open
      Rory McIlroy's Trackman numbers w/ driver on the range – 2024 Valero Texas Open
       
       
       
        • Like
      • 4 replies
    • 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open - Discussion and links to Photos
      Please put any questions or Comments here
       
       
       
      General Albums
       
      2024 Texas Children's Houston Open - Monday #1
      2024 Texas Children's Houston Open - Monday #2
      2024 Texas Children's Houston Open - Tuesday #1
      2024 Texas Children's Houston Open - Tuesday #2
      2024 Texas Children's Houston Open - Tuesday #3
       
       
       
       
      WITB Albums
       
      Thorbjorn Olesen - WITB - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Ben Silverman - WITB - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Jesse Droemer - SoTX PGA Section POY - WITB - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      David Lipsky - WITB - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Martin Trainer - WITB - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Zac Blair - WITB - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Jacob Bridgeman - WITB - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Trace Crowe - WITB - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Jimmy Walker - WITB - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Daniel Berger - WITB(very mini) - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Chesson Hadley - WITB - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Callum McNeill - WITB - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Rhein Gibson - WITB - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Patrick Fishburn - WITB - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Peter Malnati - WITB - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Raul Pereda - WITB - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Gary Woodland WITB (New driver, iron shafts) – 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Padraig Harrington WITB – 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
       
       
       
       
      Pullout Albums
       
      Tom Hoge's custom Cameron - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Cameron putter - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Piretti putters - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Ping putter - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Kevin Dougherty's custom Cameron putter - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Bettinardi putter - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Cameron putter - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Erik Barnes testing an all-black Axis1 putter – 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Tony Finau's new driver shaft – 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
       
       
       
       
       
      • 13 replies

×
×
  • Create New...