We've launched the new forums! Read more here

PING wants equipment factored into handicaps

I like the idea. And I see where the heart of it is coming from, but I don't ever see it working. First off, most of you are looking at it from the perspective of pitting two players of different skill levels against one another. What if you have cloned a Tiger Woods and they both play exactly the same with the exact same clubs, but then one day the original TW says I'm going to play with a set of cavity backs and he drops his handicap by a couple of strokes. This rule would account for that fact and place them back where they should be, at the same handicap level. THAT is what they are trying to address, the fact that any player that is playing an easier club to hit is going to turn in a better score. There is a reason why the vast majority of players on here are probably playing GI or SGI clubs. If you were to pick out a set of straight up blades, your scores would start to climb dramatically. Where I see the problem is that you cannot possibly address every club made. There are a lot of people who use custom made clubs. How do you put that info in a computer to establish a handicap. There would have to be some known parity between that club and a major brand club. I took that as dealing with irons more than the driver, and it did address taking what ball you are playing into account as well. Read the article carefully.

I'm also surprised that people don't think this is already being done with drivers. A Taylormade RBZ driver is availbe as RBZ and RBZ Tour. The tour has a slightly smaller face on the head as well as a "true" fit for flex on the shaft and a better quality shaft. If you get a "stiff" shaft on most drivers, it's does not truly meet the same criteria as the "Stiff" rating on the tour package. It also does not exhibit the repeatablity in flex for a given swing as the tour shaft does. A club rep told me that they do this to appeal to the ego of a lot of players who feel that they should be hitting a stiff shaft, when in fact they should be in a regular. I was also informed that All of the club manufacturers are doing this. There are so many driver options, you can definitely tune one in so a high handicapper can drive the ball right along with a lot of the more experience players.
 
I don't like the idea. Golf is about getting the ball in the hole in as little strokes as possible- it shouldn't matter about the equipment.
 
Very interesting idea. I'd love to read more about their ideas, patents, etc. It does seem like it could really grow the game on the other hand how in the world would you keep up with clubs used and what if you have a brand new iron set with a 10 year old driver and 40 year old putter? Just seems confusing. I am interested in seeing how this will come out. For the record, I do love where Ping is and how they are thinking outside the box.
 
i think the whole idea is kinda dumb..... i wouldn't mind seeing them stop putting restrictions on amateur golfers equipment why not let more people enjoy the game. if they want to use non conforming grooves or balls that travel farther or a belly putter they should be allowed to.
 
I love PING but I'm not a fan of this. In fact, I approve of the USGA rolling things back and I approve of having the same rules apply to the tour and amateurs. Golf to me is about the swing, not the technology.
 
Chunkylover77 said:
Any other company that would have put this out and I would have roasted them. The Ping homer in me will sit quietly
Click to expand...

If TaylorMade proposed this, the THP servers would have crashed.

Sent from my Nexus 10 using Tapatalk 2
 
I read this the other day and thought it was interesting but quite a few questions would need to be answered and a standard way of judging equipment would need to be devised. Plus I'm not so sure a 4 handicap would be a 3 handicap with an easier to hit driver or irons.
 
I think it's stupid. Play the clubs that help you score the best. If you choose to play blades and your scores go way up then you're not very bright.
 
golf4life said:
I think it's stupid. Play the clubs that help you score the best. If you choose to play blades and your scores go way up then you're not very bright.
Click to expand...

Bingo. I got paired up with a guy last week that had a Tour Issued r11s driver, r11 fairway woods and Mizuno blades. He shot over 100. Why should he be "rewarded" ?

Sent from my Nexus 10 using Tapatalk 2
 
Lots of good thoughts guys. I am interested to see if anyone's opinion changes after the method is released.
 
Wicked Cool Bearded Man said:
Lots of good thoughts guys. I am interested to see if anyone's opinion changes after the method is released.
Click to expand...

No matter their idea as how to implement this, I still won't like it. It seems like it would add some complexity to the game. Anything that makes the game more complex seems like a bad idea. Plus, I think the USGA already has too much say over what OEMs produce. The idea that the USGA will get to say how much a club's design benefits a golfer sounds like an awful idea.
 
Don't care that much for this idea, way too complicated, and who's to say which club is harder to play...

There's sooooooo many manufacturers, soo many clubs...who's to say which club is rated which way?

Should I get the same result with a Burner 2.0 & Burner 2.0 TP? If my "easier" non conforming grooves wear out, and I have a "slick" wedge, should that count as something? Does playing a PRO V1 like playing with blades, and NXT like CB and Velocity like GI?

Fun idea, but that's about it.

P.S.

Sorry for the negative vibe :D
 
I'm sorry but this is a terrible idea. Don't make the game more confusing. I don't want to input my clubs along with my score. Do I have to submit a picture of my grooves after every round? What about the ball? Now I have to play the exact some ball the entire round? High handicaps are based on the inconsistencies of the amateur golfer not the equipment.
 
Dang, ole John Solheim got lost in the weeds on this one. Heck, we may have too many variables already.

Let every golfer choose their equipment and then play the best they can play using that equipment. When we post a score, that particular score on that course is already two variables, the score of that golfer and the difficulty of the course. The difficulty of the course has been quantified into two more variables, course rating and slope. We sure don't need to try incorporating more variables into the golfer, that is far harder to measure/quantify than course difficulty. Where does it stop, first each piece of equipment, then maybe age, then height, then weight, then what??? ring size, eye color...phhhhht, play the game, count the strokes, and post it.
 
blugold said:
No matter their idea as how to implement this, I still won't like it. It seems like it would add some complexity to the game. Anything that makes the game more complex seems like a bad idea. Plus, I think the USGA already has too much say over what OEMs produce. The idea that the USGA will get to say how much a club's design benefits a golfer sounds like an awful idea.
Click to expand...

This is true as well. They can only speculate how much improvement a golfer should have. Which isn't really fair.
 
Yeah seems to inject a lot more subjectivity into your handicap, which can lead to many issues. I think this needs a lot more fine tuning before it'd be viable, or even worth considering.
 
I don't like the idea. They handicap system is too complicated already, don't muddy it further. And I don't agree with Solheim about the proposed anchoring rule. I play in a recreational league and I play in official state amateur events, and I hardly see any anchored, long or belly, putters. We have 48 players in our local league and only one uses a long putter. I have played in the state and New England senior amateurs for the past seven years and have only seen a couple of players using long putters. Where do I see long putters? I see them on TV with the pros using them. There aren't many recreational players who are going to pack a 5 foot long putter in their bag. Plus, we play on much slower greens than the pros, and it's difficult to stroke long putts with a long putter. A pro only has to draw the putter back 5 or 6 inches to get the ball to roll 50 feet on the greens they play. On the greens we play, you need to take a long swinging stroke to get the ball to roll 50 feet. A long putter is of little help when you've got to take it far back and swing it.
 
Attempo you make some very good points and it makes me wonder the long and belly putters are more difficult to use if you don't play very often and practice with them a lot. I am sure once you get used to a long or belly putter though it is probably the same as with a conventional putter. I am sure it helps if you have the yips though.
 
Kind of skimming so I don't know if this has already been said, but over the years and improvements in MOI and playability of clubs handicap is the one thing that hasn't improved. Nuff said to debunk this idea I believe.
 
Wicked Cool Bearded Man said:
Saw this article and thought it was interesting. Thoughts? It would be similar to the way courses are rated in the PING proposal.

http://www.golf.com/equipment/pings...-ratings-be-part-handicap-calculation?sct=hp3
Click to expand...

All Ping wants is the unrestricted ability to make clubs any way they want and steal more money from the poor suckers who buy it. Ping is concerned with nothing but the bottom line in their income statement. They couldn't really care less about the individual golfer or the game itself, aside from the revenue it generates for them.

The handicap system is sufficiently complex already. We don't need any additional variables to further confuse the issue.
 
blugold said:
No matter their idea as how to implement this, I still won't like it. It seems like it would add some complexity to the game. Anything that makes the game more complex seems like a bad idea. Plus, I think the USGA already has too much say over what OEMs produce. The idea that the USGA will get to say how much a club's design benefits a golfer sounds like an awful idea.
Click to expand...

This is a post I support. Couldn't have said it better
 
Fourputt said:
All Ping wants is the unrestricted ability to make clubs any way they want and steal more money from the poor suckers who buy it. Ping is concerned with nothing but the bottom line in their income statement. They couldn't really care less about the individual golfer or the game itself, aside from the revenue it generates for them.

The handicap system is sufficiently complex already. We don't need any additional variables to further confuse the issue.
Click to expand...

Although I don't agree with PING's idea, I don't really see how they would be doing this to only bring prosperity to them. The rules would be the same for all companies. And people are going to buy what they want, nothing more or less, regardless of the rules. How many 15 handicap golfers do you see sporting blades even with their lack of consistent ball striking skills? I know I see tons. And they know that it's effecting their handicap. They don't care because they enjoy playing them though.

All companies are concerned with their bottom line. If they weren't then they'd be out of business. So attacking them for that is a bit unfair. I think if anyone looks at Titleist with the mindset you are displaying here then they could almost be considered purely evil when it comes to bottom lines. But you have to look at what it takes for these guys to continue being prosperous and being able to keep bringing us quality products.
 
I think it's too complex. All players choose their own equipment, so if a player elects to game with 'tour caliber' equipment then there's probably a reason for it. Hopefully, the player has the skill to actually benefit from the equipment. High handicappers will probably be using the game improvement style clubs.
Consistency is what will separate the fields. Most handicap events I've been in 'flight' the fields anyway. The dividing line for "Championship" flight is usually 15 or so. Then the rest of the flights get names like "B" flight and so on. When a high handicapper does manage to win an event title like; lowest net score - that's just saying they are the "best" bad golfer out there. Let's face it, it's the low handicappers that the tournaments are designed for. All those other fields are there just to give "the common player" a place. Heck, most tourney's I've seen only use a percentage (normally 85%) of handicap anyway. So it's a mute point. A high handcapper is going to have to get smokin' hot to have a chance at beating a low handi player.

Adding modifiers for equipment is just too complex.
 
Bad idea by Ping. You should never factor club choice by handicap because theres so much more that goes into effecting handicap that just fairways and greens.
 
This is nothing more than the "buy" a better game from a golf club manufacturer. If that worked the average handicap would have gone down in a stairstep fashion with each new technological improvemnet to balls and clubs over the last 100 years or so.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top