[John_Conley]

John:

How about a Po-Do?

Paul:  About what I thought!!  You'd probably be okay with reined in specs.  It wouldn't have to be "standardized" to attain your desired result.

The thought of not being able to choose a Dodecahedron dimple pattern versus a truncated cone rubs me wrong.  Played the HX today and liked it.  Truth be told, there are a lot of good balls.

[TEPaul]

Matt:

Noticed your post about the USGA restricting golfers to 10 clubs under the rules. I think it would be a neat idea but even if the USGA thought it was a good idea too I don't see them pushing that.

It would likely only incite the manufacturers---you know less clubs to sell, less gross, less bottom line etc, etc, blah, blah! They would probably sue the USGA on one or another dumb grounds. And if Arnold Palmer hasn't hurt himself enough already with his Callaway ERC2 driver support, he would likely speak out on behalf of the manufacturers on this one too!

Apparently when Arnie plays golf (social golf) he rides around with two big Tour bags on his cart and God knows how many clubs--maybe fifty of them!!

[Tom_Egan]

It's hard to think of ANY I&B change which would infuriate the manufacturers more than lowering -- by any number -- the limit on clubs to be carried.  That does not mean it shouldn't be considered -- it should!!  Improvising, inventing and shaping shots is about the most enjoyable aspect of playing golf (for those of us unable to brute it 340 down the middle).  Ten clubs, or even seven or eight, would be much more enjoyable than 14 -- and think of how many more people would walk and carry rather than ride!  OHMIGAWD!! Now the cart manufacturers will be pissed!  Bottom line -- any improvement is going to be painful for some because most involve potential economic damage.  It (change) can be accomplished, but be prepared for a long, acrimonious, and EXPENSIVE fight!

[Robert_Walker]

Now...
Limiting the # of clubs you carry does not require a rules change. Just do it! When I travel, I do, and I honestly do not think it costs me many shots.

[Jim_Kennedy]

All that the rules of golf  do is limit a player to no more than 14 clubs, they don't say you have to have that many

[Paul Turner]

Changing the ball dimension and weight constraints would have a much more dramatic effect than any of the proposed legislation above.  For example, increase the diameter of the ball by 10% and a Pro will lose about 30 yards.

[Matt_Ward]

TEPaul:

Tom, I still believe what Frank Thomas has suggested can work if people would just open their eyes. Explain to me how a world class professional needs so many clubs?

When you knock down the max number of clubs you begin to make players improvise. Your comments about the manufacturers is really unimportant. Why? They will do whatever they feel advances their narrow interests. People will still buy a whole range of clubs and many average players actually DO carry more than 14 clubs during casual play.

Let's be clear whatever is ultimately determined may likely face litigation. Is the USGA prepared to fight for golf's long term interests or are the blue-bloods simply interested in sitting on top of all the loot they collected from NBC with their windfall TV contract??? And, if they are simply interested in playing Mother Goose to all their dough then it's clear the lawyers are the ones really making the decisions -- not the people who are true golfers.

Last I checked -- being a leader means being able to lead.  

FYI -- for whatever it's worth I lost plenty of respect for AP since his shucking duties for Callaway. The Arnold of yesteryear would never in a million years advocate the nonsense that comes from his mouth today. I said it before -- it seems "senior moments" have really caught up with him.

P.S. I have no issue with limiting the length of clubs provided the putter is brought into the mix ... ditto overall clubhead size. It's time the train started to leave the station ...  

[Paul Richards]

John;

You are absolutely correct.  Some type of "reined-in" specs
would be appropriate.


It will be a shame to have to see that the "2007 USGA is
being played on the brand-new (fill-in the blank),
an 8000-yard course designed by ....

[Robert_Walker]

There is no need to limit the number of  clubs at this time. 14 is fine. However, the best players do improvise shots with the 14 that they have. Remember Tiger's approach on 11 at the Masters, when he won the GRAND SLAM?
Down-hill 140 yd from the hole. Sweet knock down 8 iron.

Now this might relate to Butch, and how his daddy told him to go out with even irons on Monday Wednesday Friday and odd irons on Tuesday Thursday Saturday, and finally on Sunday to use them all. This taught a shot-making skill that forced the player to learn exactly what each club could do, and then gave him a complete TOOL BOX for tournament play.

If you think about it, a great player is always in between clubs, and after all said and done, the great players are the ones who really benefit from 14 clubs.

So....
I would advise everyone to go out with fewer clubs.

[Paul Richards]

Robert:

I would love to have to learn more shots by playing different
shots with less than 14 clubs.

But until my competitor plays with less, I can't afford to give
up that edge.

So we need the USGA to step in.  Balls with less velocity,
less clubs, whatever it is.

[Robert_Walker]

Paul,
Remember who your competitor is.....
Old Man Bogey.
The USGA will never lower the # of clubs limit, and I doubt that the RANDA will either.
So remove some clubs and have fun.

[Robert_Walker]

Paul,
Remember who your competitor is.....
Old Man Bogey.
The USGA will never lower the # of clubs limit, and I doubt that the RANDA will either.
So remove some clubs and have fun.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

I have been carrying eleven clubs all year, even dropping down to ten a couple of times to test the boundries, and I'm having a blast.

I just purchased a new Liquidmetal Professor Johnson driver, which I have yet to hit, and will keep my old driver in the bag just for the time being, but it will be coming out soon.

I was amazed at Archapalooza, how many guys designing and building the courses are doing the same. I think even our beloved Fearless Leader, Mr. Ran Morrisset is carrying less then the amount!

[Tony Ristola]

The USGA is taking aim at the wrong animal.  It's a start, but a meaningless start.  When will they address the ball issue?

Tom:  I think the 10 club set would increase equipment sales because golfers would have a garage full of clubs to fit courses and conditions.  The potential rule may allow ten in the bag, but wouldn't restrict the amount of clubs at the point of sale.

[John_Conley]

Risto:

Couldn't disagree more with your assessment of a "meaningless start".  The biggest reason people are hitting the ball so far is that implements have changed.  When coupled with the increased desire to play balls geared for distance, BAM!

What do you propose be done with balls?  I hear a lot of talk, but no specifics.  I've heard an argument for "one-ball", which is rubbish in my eyes.  I'm okay with a call for either reined in specs or a separate, tighter set for professional tournament golf (think wooden bat analogy).  What do you want?

[Curt Madson]

 
Please read this in the correct context.  It is an example not bravado!  

25 years ago, when I could play, my swing speed was 133 and routinely hit the ball over 300 yards in long drive contests.  However, my playing distance was less because an off center hit with a wood club at a full speed resulted in a much greater error.  Now my swing speed is 120 and I can hit the ball almost as far as before except I lack the "extra" when needed.   The obvious point is, somewhere along the way a combination of ball and club has made up for 13 miles an hour of swing speed.

Blame the ACLU!  More correctly blame the USGA for snoozing a little bit too long and enjoying the growth of golf and then realizing, wow, what happened to our game?  The ball takes most of the blame, then shafts, then club faces.  Having experimented with most balls, as they hit the market, some are longer than others.  What really happened is the maufacturers have been able to take the "long" balls and figure a way to make them playable.

The two most ridiculous things I have heard (from AP)are that "people get a chance to hit the ball long and enjoy the game" and "I am between clubs"!  Pick a set of tees from the five that most courses offer that suits your game.  If you have the audacity to make the second statement what you are really saying is "I can't play and I need an excuse for this poor shot I am about to hit"  Ten extra clubs won't help this person.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Can we escape from the fantasy world of advocating, or claiming to play with less than 14 clubs.

The next time you go to play, just peek into a few bags at random, and see how many golfers ignore the existing rule mandating a maximum of 14 clubs.

Talk of reducing the USGA rule regarding the maximum number of clubs from 14 to 10 or any other number is sheer folly.

Those who voluntarily play with less clubs make an individual choice, but to impose that alleged choice on others, through the USGA isn't going to happen.

Rather than getting off on a tangent, you should view the USGA's action as a begining step in the right direction, and focus on the expansion and extension of the initial first step.

For those wishing to continue the fantasy,
Why not just three clubs ?
Why not just one club ?
Why not just throw the ball ?

[Paul Richards]

Patrick:

Excellent points.

I've found that many people at my club who normally use
carts have plenty more than 14 clubs in their bags.  

You can by sure that just because the USGA were to lower
the number below 14, these folks won't be removing any
clubs from their bags.

[Paul Richards]

This reminds me of a 14-club-limit story that I heard:

It seems that two gentlemen were playing in their Club
Championship and sharing a cart.  At the ninth hole, Mr. A
noticed that Mr. B's bag was awfully full of clubs.  He asked
Mr. B how many clubs was he carrying?  Mr. B says he has
15, but since he hardly uses his 1-iron, he turned it upside
down.  Mr. A points out that the tournament rule is the
14-club limit.  Mr. B's response?  If you call it on me, I'll
quit!  Mr. A calls him on it (he has to - if he doesn't, he
could receive a penalty, right?) and Mr. B grabbs his bag
in a huff and walked in!

Amazing but true!

[Tony Ristola]

John:  Just take the standards today and roll them back so the ball travels shorter.  Different constructions can be used... different trajectories, spin rates etc. as today.

Patrick:  Going to the moon was also sheer fantasy.  It came from someone who surely was considered a mental spastic.

Want to  make the game more affordable and challenging... this is one way to do it... why not speak about ALL possible elements which could better the game, even if they aren't considered possible today?  This would make it more inexpensive, more fun, interesting and faster to play.  

Yes the 14 club rule is broken everyday and every minute of everyday, but for tournaments (PGA Tour) 10 or 11 clubs is a good idea... and who knows the exact effect it would have on the daily masses... perhaps none, perhaps some.  I would bet on some.

One other benefit would be for the club professonals.  They'd probably have better equipment sales because people would be experimenting with the gaps between clubs.  The pro would be bending a lot of clubs (loft and lie) and a good salesman would use the opportunity to sell plenty of equipment.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tony Ristola,

Going to the moon and flying were always the dreams of men.

Surely you don't equate the two.

When many people today, don't adhere to the current 14 club maximum, it's doubtful that a serious movement to fewer clubs will prevail.

Next, some on this site will endorse reducing the speed limit on all roads to 15 miles per hour.

The two have about an equal chance of adoption..  
Okay, I'll give the edge to the 10 club limit.

[BillV]

I find it interesting how many times this discussion has developed on these pages.  Any attempt to further define club technology is, I think, a good thing.

Ball technology is such that the trajectory, spin and carry distance are easily "dialed in" to almost any set of specifications now.  I have wanted to see a well-defined limit on overall carry, independent of any other factors.  If one can swing in control faster, so be it, but take today's balls which are all basically solid ball technology and reduce the carry distance by reducing the initial velocity producible  with a specified clubhead speed and limit CR so that no significant additional energy transfer occurs.  Too much aerodynamic control of srtaightness is not in the interest of the game, either.

This will limit length and permit control of flight and trajectory.  You still have to use skill to get the ball from point A to B.

So distance limit with limits on straightness control would be most beneficial to preservation of the character of the game and its most historic courses at this time.

Will it happen?

Not likely.

But technologically controlling the limit of the drive will be a good start.  Whether or not balls are the problem (Robert Walker    ), they can be the solution.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Shivas,

I've been echoing your sentiments for some time, but others are still in denial with respect to the distances golfers are hitting the ball today.  (Robert Walker, notice I didn't mention any names.)

The USGA's decision is a first step in the right direction.

Let's hope additional steps follow.

[Robert_Walker]

Pat Mucci,
Do you ever watch the classics on Golf Channel?

[Paul Turner]

If you're really interested in how important (or not) individual club characteristics are,  for ultimate length, then buy "How Golf Clubs Really Work and How to Optimise Their Design" by Werner and Greig (pub: 2000)



I have the book, but don't have time at the moment to summarise the findings.  But in short, a shaft length of 47 inches is about optimum for any shaft weight.  You don't gain much by increasing to about 50 inches.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()