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

[Golfnutgalen]

I mean he's not wrong, even a wedge requires a more exact strike than a 460 cc driver. 

 

Did he say he hits it straighter than any other club? No he did not, so the last few pages of arguments have been completely irrelevant.

 

 

[Archimedes65]

22 minutes ago, Pnwpingi210 said:

And what is the extraordinary about that?  
 

You may disagree with his opinion, but it’s not an extraordinary claim as it relates to modern professional golf.

 

 

 

You don’t think saying a driver is easier to hit than a gap wedge is a bit of an extraordinary claim?  I’d take my driver over my 3 or 5 wood myself, but not over even a mid iron.

[Archimedes65]

There are a lot of straw men walking around in this thread… 😂

[Pnwpingi210]

1 minute ago, Archimedes65 said:

There are a lot of straw men walking around in this thread… 😂

This we agree on!

[Golfnutgalen]

On 5/21/2024 at 4:36 PM, maamold said:

They do. Kim and Scott stated there is no penalty doing so with the modern equipment. Should I say it again so you can't glaze over the statements ...They do swing as hard as they can with the modern equipment with little penalty. I'll paste their statements again...

"The biggest fundamental change in the game since I've been a pro, is traditionally the driver has been the hardest club to hit in the bag, and now it's the most forgiving. And that's the biggest evolutionary change in the golf bag to me out of the equipment." - Adam Scott

"The ball is the ball, but the driver went from the hardest club to hit to now the most forgiving and the go-to club for guys if they are nervous. The penalty for missing a driver just isn't high enough anymore, in my opinion, at the top level. I'd like to address that first and see what knock on effects that has. If guys wanna swing at it 130 with a tiny driver head then good luck." - Adam Scott

 

“The driver is the most forgiving club in the bag now. You swing as hard as you can and get it down there far, it’s not skillful. It’s not a skillful part of the game anymore.” - Adam Scott

“Now the drivers are made so easy to hit that there’s no penalty for swinging as hard as you want to at every driver, because it won’t go as far off-line, There’s no penalty for really going all-out on one. That’s changed a lot.”  - Brandt Snedeker.

"...but now it's come to a point where you don't have to hit the ball in the center and you can hit get the same amount of yardage and same accuracy as somebody who does hit it in the center, and obviously not being a huge guy my advantage was being able to hit the ball in the middle of the face and and be in the fairway .But but now everyone's hitting it long everyone's hitting it everyone's hitting it semi straight and um so it it ends up  becoming a bombers putting contest..." - Anthony Kim

 

 

Reposted to clear things up. Adam Scott said it's the most forgiving club and more or less that's accurate. You can hit it all over the face and still get good results. 

 

Can we move on now?

Edited May 23 by Golfnutgalen
bolded text

[Archimedes65]

Back to the original topic; the golf ball.  Does anyone know what kind of climate/pressure controlled chamber I’m going to need to keep my stock of 1,000 2027 ProV1’s fresh for a decade?

[ThinkingPlus]

4 minutes ago, Archimedes65 said:

Back to the original topic; the golf ball.  Does anyone know what kind of climate/pressure controlled chamber I’m going to need to keep my stock of 1,000 2027 ProV1’s fresh for a decade?

Wine cellar?

[TLUBulldogGolf]

36 minutes ago, Archimedes65 said:

 

You don’t think saying a driver is easier to hit than a gap wedge is a bit of an extraordinary claim?  I’d take my driver over my 3 or 5 wood myself, but not over even a mid iron.

This just made his point..

[Archimedes65]

1 hour ago, TLUBulldogGolf said:

This just made his point..

 

How does that make your point?  He said it was ‘the most forgiving club in the bag’.  I’d say my 8 iron is more forgiving than my driver.  I pull driver over my 5 or 3 wood simply because I’m more familiar with my driver.  I only need to hit five wood a couple of times a round on my course and I almost never practice it.  And I don’t even know where my three wood is.  I haven’t put a three wood in the bag for over 15 years.  In fact, I don’t even know if the three wood that I currently have buried somewhere in my storeroom has ever been hit anywhere but on the range.

 

Drivers are more forgiving than they were 20 years ago, but only because those old clubs were extremely unforgiving.  Today’s drivers are better than those, but to say they’re more forgiving than every other club in the bag is a pretty big stretch.  If they were, how come the Pros often take 3 wood to find fairways on some holes, even when there’s enough fairway length to hit driver?  Why not take the more forgiving club?

 

Edited May 24 by Archimedes65

[Simpsonia]

I mean this would be pretty easy to quantify if we had access to all the DECADE dispersion data across the average tour pro bag, then do some geometry on the dispersion circles to find the average offline degrees (instead of yards offline) of each club. Luckily I don't have the data (nor willpower at this point in time) to run these numbers. Hopefully some data hero can swoop in and save us all. 

[m d g]

7 hours ago, clevited said:

Actually, I believe it was available to tour players as early as 2000.

 

Wrong.

 

Ben Franklin was a ProV1x man. It revolutionized golf...

[m d g]

5 hours ago, Ashley Schaeffer said:

If that isn't Chuck and Shaq talking about how soft NBA players are nowadays, I don't know what is.  

 

But they're not wrong : )

[Pnwpingi210]

7 minutes ago, Simpsonia said:

I mean this would be pretty easy to quantify if we had access to all the DECADE dispersion data across the average tour pro bag, then do some geometry on the dispersion circles to find the average offline degrees (instead of yards offline) of each club. Luckily I don't have the data (nor willpower at this point in time) to run these numbers. Hopefully some data hero can swoop in and save us all. 

Agree with this.

[Pnwpingi210]

23 minutes ago, Archimedes65 said:

 

How does that make your point?  He said it was ‘the most forgiving club in the bag’.  I’d say my 8 iron is more forgiving than my driver.  I pull driver over my 5 or 3 wood simply because I’m more familiar with my driver.  I only need to hit five wood a couple of times a round on my course and I almost never practice it.  And I don’t even know where my three wood is.  I haven’t put a three wood in the bag for over 15 years.  In fact, I don’t even know if the three wood that I currently have buried somewhere in my storeroom has ever been hit anywhere but on the range.

 

Drivers are more forgiving than they were 20 years ago, but only because those old clubs were extremely unforgiving.  Today’s drivers are better than those, but to say they’re more forgiving than every other club in the bag is a pretty big stretch.
 

 If they were, how come the Pros often take 3 wood to find fairways on some holes, even when there’s enough fairway length to hit driver?  Why not take the more forgiving club?

 

Driver simply flys too far now to be useful on some holes for some players.  This is why you saw tour pros test mini drivers or two woods this year at RBC heritage in Hilton head and the Master.  
 

Pings Marty Jertson also built and plays a 43 inch “2nd” driver in place of his 3 wood.  He plays a full size ping max head at 12 degree to take advantage of max moi on holes he needs less than driver off the tee.  Hes a respected engineer by trade and a very data driven dude.
 

 

Get driver like forgiveness with a larger head than a traditional 3 wood, more loft than a driver to give it a bit more spin and less distance, yet small than a driver to maintain some functionality off the deck.

Edited May 24 by Pnwpingi210

[Chunkitgood]

The driver was always the most forgiving club.  It was designed from the beginning that way because it sits at the end of a really long stick.  People used to really hit it very badly because it sits on the end of a really long stock.  Most still do.

 

Seriously pros may find it easier to hit because being rational people they put a lot of practice into it and a lot of effort maximizing fit.  In hopes of winning a golf tournament.

[maamold]

8 hours ago, ThinkingPlus said:

Actually if a player is going to make extraordinary claims about how easy a club is to hit, they should be able to back it up with their own performance if they can't otherwise provide data supporting their assertion. 

If they aren't easier to hit straighter and farther why do you feel the need to play a modern driver?

[cardia10]

In the end, it seems like a much larger % of the population could really care less what the USGA dictates to try to change what less than 1% of the game does well. If they aren't careful, they will end up like the NCAA and be an organization without a cause or supporting members anymore. Less than 1% of amateur golfers play "high level competitions" where the full rules even matter. When rules are created that even the majority of pros say is useless, then who does the USGA even represent at this point....the 15 antiquated courses they keep trying to have events at I guess. 

[ThinkingPlus]

6 hours ago, maamold said:

If they aren't easier to hit straighter and farther why do you feel the need to play a modern driver?

Because it is a club designed and built using engineering principles to meet the performance requirements of a golf driver within the current RoG. All the clubs I play are such.

[Pnwpingi210]

2 hours ago, ThinkingPlus said:

Because it is a club designed and built using engineering principles to meet the performance requirements of a golf driver within the current RoG. All the clubs I play are such.

Do  drivers produced by oems 2003-5 meet the requirements you mention above?  
 

(I’m asking cause I’m legitimately don’t know, and that statement leads me to believe they are out of compliance and that’s why you are not playing one, nor is most any professional golfer)

Edited May 24 by Pnwpingi210

[maamold]

2 hours ago, ThinkingPlus said:

Because it is a club designed and built using engineering principles to meet the performance requirements of a golf driver within the current RoG. All the clubs I play are such.

worst dance move I've seen in this thread -- 'It's THEIR fault I don't play harder to hit equipment!'

[ThinkingPlus]

14 minutes ago, Pnwpingi210 said:

Do  drivers produced by oems 2003-5 meet the requirements you mention above?  
 

(I’m asking cause I’m legitimately don’t know, and that statement leads me to believe they are out of compliance and that’s why you are not playing one, nor is most any professional golfer)

Yes they meet the same requirements. Drivers haven't changed much in 20+ years. Slight tweaks here or there. COR is the same.

 

The pros are encouraged to play the latest product by the OEMs (endorsement deals are largely worthless if your player rocks a 20 year old design you no longer make). They do so as long as they can get the same performance.  You frequently see pros using older designs or go back to an older design when they are struggling. 

[cardia10]

1 minute ago, maamold said:

worst dance move I've seen in this thread -- 'It's THEIR fault I don't play harder to hit equipment!'

All we can do is play by "their" rules. The USGA made them, not us.

[ThinkingPlus]

Just now, maamold said:

worst dance move I've seen in this thread -- 'It's THEIR fault I don't play harder to hit equipment!'

I don't play harder to hit equipment because that would be stupid. I play what allows me to shoot the lowest scores.

[Pnwpingi210]

1 minute ago, ThinkingPlus said:

Yes they meet the same requirements. Drivers haven't changed much in 20+ years. Slight tweaks here or there. COR is the same.

 

The pros are encouraged to play the latest product by the OEMs (endorsement deals are largely worthless if your player rocks a 20 year old design you no longer make). They do so as long as they can get the same performance.  You frequently see pros using older designs or go back to an older design when they are struggling. 

This depends on how you subjectively define “frequently”.

 

I’ll do some research on 50 or so players and see how many players are playing a driver older than 5 years and get back to this thread.  Are the some drivers that are one or two generations old?  Sure.  Those are made within the last 5 years and agree are fairly close in performance.  

there is no denying equipment manufactures incentives players to transition to the latest generation driver.  It’s been argued before, by both sides of the roll back arguement that it’s unlikely that a players going to put something in the bag that doesn’t give them the best chance to win (this might vary for the lower ranked players as the contract incentives might exceed what they perceive they can win on tour)

 

Do you personally play a driver that made in the last 5 years?  If your goal is to shoot the. Best score possible you would you play you current driver or a driver from 2003-2005 that’s fitted for you with components that were available in 2003-2005?

[Golfnutgalen]

Drivers are easier to hit than ever nowadays even compared to 2003. 

 

Besides I doubt Adam Scott is even referring to 2003. He specifically mentioned hitting a tiny headed driver which throws everything since then out of the window. 

 

TW was able to dominate in 2000 hitting a 260 cc driver. Adam Scott turned pro that same year. That's the era he's more than likely referring to. Jack Nicklaus used a driver somewhere around 150-175 cc in his prime.

"The biggest fundamental change in the game since I've been a pro, is traditionally the driver has been the hardest club to hit in the bag, and now it's the most forgiving. And that's the biggest evolutionary change in the golf bag to me out of the equipment." - Adam Scott

 

From my research the first 400+ cc drivers arrived in late 2002. Which coincides with the distance boost the following year. 

Edited May 24 by Golfnutgalen

[Pnwpingi210]

 

Relevant to the discussion at hand.  One of the top fitters in uk.

 

m4 was release  2018, tsr3 was release in 2022.  About 4 years difference.  Gained 10 yards of carry and total.  Was fit and built at this shop.  About as normalized as you can get.

 

hes very clear that on center strikes there’s not much difference in the last 20 years if properly fitted. The is a measurable difference in off center strikes, which are getting closer to center strike performance.

 

Edited May 24 by Pnwpingi210

[ThinkingPlus]

8 minutes ago, Pnwpingi210 said:

This depends on how you subjectively define “frequently”.

 

I’ll do some research on 50 or so players and see how many players are playing a driver older than 5 years and get back to this thread.  Are the some drivers that are one or two generations old?  Sure.  Those are made within the last 5 years and agree are fairly close in performance.  

there is no denying equipment manufactures incentives players to transition to the latest generation driver.  It’s been argued before, by both sides of the roll back arguement that it’s unlikely that a players going to put something in the bag that doesn’t give them the best chance to win (this might vary for the lower ranked players as the contract incentives might exceed what they perceive they can win on tour)

 

Do you personally play a driver that made in the last 5 years?  If your goal is to shoot the. Best score possible you would you play you current driver or a driver from 2003-2005 that’s fitted for you with components that were available in 2003-2005?

They probably don't go back beyond 5 years often. Previous design or two is most likely. Usually the OEMs tweak a design in their current stable to keep players happy under the 5 year point. My understanding is that 3 woods have been the least changed club for most pros.

 

A head that fits from 2003 - 2005 is probably fine if it fit. Shaft would be an issue. I need the stable, lighter weight shafts available today that didn't exist 20 years ago. I'm an old lady that doesn't hit the ball very far compared to the pros/elite male amateurs discussed here. For me, the shaft is much more important. 

[Pnwpingi210]

1 minute ago, ThinkingPlus said:

They probably don't go back beyond 5 years often. Previous design or two is most likely. Usually the OEMs tweak a design in their current stable to keep players happy under the 5 year point. My understanding is that 3 woods have been the least changed club for most pros.

 

A head that fits from 2003 - 2005 is probably fine if it fit. Shaft would be an issue. I need the stable, lighter weight shafts available today that didn't exist 20 years ago. I'm an old lady that doesn't hit the ball very far compared to the pros/elite male amateurs discussed here. For me, the shaft is much more important. 

That all makes sense.

 

So as long as you could play a current shaft, you would play a mid 2000s head.  Do you?  
 

Ill add that my bias in this is I was professionally fit  in 2003-5 and struggled off the tee, less so than in 90’s -2003 but still driver was the cause of most of my terrible rounds.  Took a break from playing golf regularly until about 2015.  Got fit professionally in 2017 and driver became the best club in my bag( I’ve upgrade 3 times since then and have seen dispersion shrink each time)  I’m truly shocked what I get away with.  I think higher speed players benefit exponentially with the technology over the last 10 years in drivers faces and that maybe why some of this is hard to believe cause it might not have helped others the same.  Strictly my anecdotal experience and I don’t have any meta data to support)

[Simpsonia]

6 minutes ago, Pnwpingi210 said:

That all makes sense.

 

So as long as you could play a current shaft, you would play a mid 2000s head.  Do you?  
 

Ill add that my bias in this is I was professionally fit  in 2003-5 and struggled off the tee, less so than in 90’s -2003 but still driver was the cause of most of my terrible rounds.  Took a break from playing golf regularly until about 2015.  Got fit professionally in 2017 and driver became the best club in my bag( I’ve upgrade 3 times since then and have seen dispersion shrink each time)  I’m truly shocked what I get away with.  I think higher speed players benefit exponentially with the technology over the last 10 years in drivers faces and that maybe why some of this is hard to believe cause it might not have helped others the same.  Strictly my anecdotal experience and I don’t have any meta data to support)

 

Why are we even discussing amateurs and a rollback driver? The average golfer needs the increased forgiveness so much I could absolutely see a driver rollback slowly killing the sport, or at least making it what it once was, a sport only played by rich old white men who want to keep it that way (we even have a few of those types gatekeepers in this very thread). Anyways, even the USGA isn't stupid enough to propose that. 

[Pnwpingi210]

Just now, Simpsonia said:

 

Why are we even discussing amateurs and a rollback driver? The average golfer needs the increased forgiveness so much I could absolutely see a driver rollback slowly killing the sport, or at least making it what it once was, a sport only played by rich old white men who want to keep it that way (we even have a few of those types gatekeepers in this very thread). Anyways, even the USGA isn't stupid enough to propose that. 

It’s relevant cause no tour professional or amateur is choosing to play a 15-20 yr old driver because is gives them the best chance of shoot their best score.    If we all agree on that then let’s stop arguing there’s not much difference between a 2005 head and 2023 head.