Bifurcation of rules or eqipment

[rollin]

We have talked about such in the past especially when the topic came up about the possible consideration given to dialing back the golf ball itself. Anyway there are actually two topics when it comes to bifuraction. It may all be rules related but technically one is about the equipment like the ball or clubs and the other about the playing rules like "stroke and distance" or "divot rule" etc.

I am all for bifurcation for amateur golf when it comes to some playing rules which I think makes the game more fun and more attractive. For examples, the playing out of a divot rule or the stroke-n-distance rule and i'm sure we can go on about a bunch more if we went through the rule book.

However i am really on the fence when it comes to bifurcation to also include nonconforming equipment. Imo, when it comes to some of the rules of play being changed it doesnt promote any false ability in how well one is able to golf. One still has to be able to golf very well. But when we talk about non conforming equipment it now can promote that false ability and one may then actually be performing better than one really is.

Bifurcation of equipment rules could happen two ways. One way would be based on rolling back pro equipment but not amateur eqipment and the other way would be to keep pro equipment as is currently but allow amateur equipment to advance. Either way the potential problem would be the same.. I can certainly see the want and positives for our amateur clubs to be longer, more forgiving, and things like our wedges generate the stopping power we cant on our own. But the potential problem with that as i see it is that when/if one made the transition from amateur to pro status and his/her overall capablilities has been falsified with nonconforming equipment they will find out very fast that its no longer the same game and may not be really all that good to begin with.

He/she was perhaps hitting longer, straighter, sticking more spin shots, being much less penalized for misshits etc , etc... he/she basically became a master at the amateur level and true is better than the rest of the amateur masses and therfore turning pro except it was still all done with different equipment than the pros. Where would the next sets of pros then actually come from? Playing by some different amateur rules would not have this effect but playing with different amateur equipment just might. For that reason i am on the fence. Perhaps you can sway me one way or the other. And I dont mean to "push me off" as some may wish

 

[GenErr]

I think ability transcends equipment.
Much like amateur baseball players must give up using aluminum bats when turning pro. The good ones make it, others don't. It would be the same in golf I would think.

 

[Golf 'N Gator]

What I hate the most about the equipment limits is the fact that they are LARGELY based on the world class player's (tour Pro's) which make up only 0.01% of all the worlds golfers.

The USGA and the R&A only changed the groove rules because this 0.01% of all golfers were able to put a huge amount of spin on the ball while playing out of the deep rough. The world tours pushed for this change because the deep rough was becoming less and less of a way for the course to defend itself against these world class players.

So, the groove rule was changed and this had a huge impact on all of the major OEM's as they were required to spend millions of dollars re-designing and re-tooling their manufacturing process. These millions spent is now being passed down to all of us that make up the 99.9% of the worlds golfers that did not spin the ball too much.

Then came the anchoring ban on putters. Again, the USGA and the R&A had no idea how many people in the 99.9% group used an anchored putter, but the bottom line was they didn't like seeing it used on the tours as more and more guys won events (the ladies tend to not use long putters).

Now, the ball will soon be under attack, again based only on the fact that the world class professionals (that 0.01%) hit the ball too far for many of our old classic courses. So again, change will come based only on this single group of all of the worlds players.

At 52 years old, I am no longer as flexible as I once was and even though club technology has come a long way, I am being held back I feel by the limits already in place when it comes to things like the COR of a driver (set at 0.83) based totally on the distance that 0.01% were hitting drivers in the late 90's.

I feel that there needs to be two sets of rules, one set for the 0.01% and one set for the rest of us that make up the other 99.9%. Pro golf is entertainment and the players really are that good.

I also like to point out that the course record at my home course was set in 1968 and still stands today. This course has NOT become obsolete just yet. Studies I think also show that given all this technology, we (that 99.9% or you and I) handicaps have not dropped much in the past twenty years. Why? We simply are just not that good and it just goes to show how big the gap is between us and Phil and Tiger. With that said, why are the limits set based on what Phil and Tiger can do?

This is my opinion and as a human I might have it wrong, but this is how I feel right now. Let the tour(s) set limits on clubs and balls and let the rest of us have a little more and let us have a little more fun.

 

[thewitt]

Before you guys convince yourself that a non confirming driver will gain you another 20 yards off the tee, you should go hit a few. You can still buy them. You won't gain any significant distance just by increasing the COR of your driver head.

Non confirming equipment rules were not made for you. They too were made for the guys who have 125 mph flu head speed....

I don't want two sets of rules - equipment or playing - and I hope the governing bodies keep the game the same for all of us.

The PGA Tour can implement tour restrictions if they want to roll back the distances. They could make those guys play persimmon again if they want, but don't change the Rules of Golf.

 

[adamw238]

I don't care what the rules are. As long as I'm playing golf, I'm happy. I played with persimmon woods, steel heads, balata balls, single core, 2, 3, 4 and 5 layer balls, liquid core balls, wedges with square grooves and round grooves. At the end of the day, none of that really makes an amateur golfer THAT much better.

Last week a friend and I did a driver test. We took a R9, R7, FTi, Big Bertha Steelhead, the new big bertha and the SLDR and just started hitting them. There was a distance gap, but it was 20 yards at most. The equipment has improved for sure, but the biggest improvement had been with the actual golfers. Golfers are now more athletic than ever before and as a result, they can hit longer shots. I bet if you gave any pro an old steel head driver they could still take it 300.

Rap-a-tap Tappin' on my SG4

 

[rollin]

for "Hoosier" your main points about the .001 percentile are the exact reasons why we feel advocate for bifurcation of equipment and is what leans towards that side of the fence. Because its not at all wrong to think that way imo as I feel similar. But there is also the other thing I mention.

 

[rollin]

For those thinking that the equipment would not make much of a difference one may argue to differ. I think much of that depends on which route they would take if bifurcation ever took place. Those routs I mention earlier. One in which they keep our equipment the same but tame down the pro equipment and the other way is to keep pro equipment as is and yet allow the amateur equipment to extend past where it is now. In fact who knows? They might even just for sake of argument dial back pro equipment and but also allow for amateur equipment to advance.

If amateur equipment is able to advance I think the differences will be very significant. Limits on clubs has been in place because the tech was moving fast and imo can already surpass the set limits if they allowed it. If they couldn't already surpass the limits there would have been no need to set them. Now lets imagine they allow tech to go to the next levels for amateur golf. I do think you will see those 20 more yards and maybe even more and also the improvement even with the mishit. The improvements in spinning the wedges and short irons to stick and draw back would also increase very much. Many complain now about the difference for that being dialed back. If that is significant enough to warrant a gripe than imagine if it were allowed to go to the next levels the other way. Point being that one couldn't say that's a big deal for dialing back and yet at the same time try to say it would be a huge deal if allowed to advance forward.

I don't advocate against bifurcation of playing rules but as said am on the fence for the equipment part. And I agree with the .001 percent thing but from what I said here above leads to include what I argued earlier about the possible situation of a falsified talent that just may be not such a great thing for golf in a way for reasons mentioned in my earlier post.

 

[rollin]

I think ability transcends equipment.
Much like amateur baseball players must give up using aluminum bats when turning pro. The good ones make it, others don't. It would be the same in golf I would think.

I think aluminum bats are a bit different. Aluminum is more about only pop. There also disadvantage to aluminum bats too. The positives are a faster ball that allows a few more homers, a few more hits that get through the infield. A few more land in the outfield before the fielder can get to it. All leads to more hits. But that same extra ball speed also adds to some negative things like more double plays hit into and more would-be doubles may now be singles as those otherwise gap doubles bounce off the wall and get to the outfielders quicker. Foul balls from wooden bats dont turn into fair balls with the aluminum bat. But There is so much more to the striking of a golf ball where the error of the mishit is much more detrimental. Results from tech advancements to the golf club would (for golf) imo far out way the results gained from aluminum bats in baseball (relatively speaking) for the same amateur if he played both sports. But that's just my view on that.

 

[thewitt]

Though I'm not going to argue this to death, as a club designer I have canon tested high C.O.R. drivers and the results are not that interesting below 125mph swing speeds. If you want to try a 600cc, high C.O.R. driver, you can buy this today, shaft it up and hit it. You won't become a better golfer because of it...

 

[rollin]

Though I'm not going to argue this to death, as a club designer I have canon tested high C.O.R. drivers and the results are not that interesting below 125mph swing speeds. If you want to try a 600cc, high C.O.R. driver, you can buy this today, shaft it up and hit it. You won't become a better golfer because of it...

Thats an interesting fact and my assumptions would then be wrong and then I would lean more towards this side than before. But I would ask if you dont mind just for curiosity and some knowledge, how much higher of COR you speak of? If its only some fractions of a percent do we actually have the tech to get it very much higher? even if with use of other materials used in the club head? and if it did become almost perfect as it can then would the differences for distance gains be that much more substantial.?

Forgive my ignorance but I have read the difference ("if" this is correct) that the diference between .820 and .830 would be about 4 yards with a 100mph ss and of course would also go up or down relative to the ss. That seems (if true) pretty substancial for 100th pefcent and if it got into the 90 percentiles or even close to that it would leave me to belive that would be a lot of yardage. Is this not true? and how far can it be raised were it not for the current conforming regulation?
Hope yoy dont mind the questions.

 

[thewitt]

The problem with thinning the face for higher C.O.R. - now actually measured without a canon as C.T. - is the distance improvement is logarithmic and not a simple slope.

I'll see if I can find some of my performance data files and share the graphs here.