[Patrick_Mucci]

And, the golf ball won't go any farther.

Unless, you consider that Mickelson declared that he gained an additional 15-20 yards by going to a 47 inch shaft.

Vijay Singh and Davis Love have also experimented with 47 inch drivers.

Presently, accuracy is a trade off problem, but, it's only a matter of time before the hi-techies solve that problem.

The USGA shaft length limit is 48 inches.

20 years ago the standard length of a PGA Tour Player's driver was 42.5 inches.

If shaft length was limited to 43 inches, head size to approximately 250 cc and COR regulated, then only one issue would remain...... the ball.

If there isn't a retro spec, the ball's going to keep going farther and farther.

Average PGA driving distance in 2005 = 288.9
22 % averaged more than 300 yards.

Nicklaus at his best couldn't average either of those numbers for the season.

It's time to support the USGA and their efforts at dialing back the specs for I & B.

[RJ_Daley]

I'm really not informed enough to know the specifics.  But, I wonder how the driver shaft length issue works for players that are taller.  Obviously, the wider the arc of the swing, theoretically - the more speed and force can be administered to the ball.  When a guy like Singh is relegated to a 43 inch shaft, doesn't he have a sort of imposed disadvantage in that the shorter shaft puts him into a more upright and less powerful angle than a shorter man using the same lenght shaft?

Is there an issue of proportionality to shaft length corresponding to player height?  And, that seems to then have a reverse disadvantage to shorter players if a taller player can use a 46-48 inch shaft and naturally generate the wider arc.

I'm just asking if there is a fair solution to this specification of shaft length issue.

[Craig Sweet]

Wasn't it Johnny Miller, yesterday, who was saying they needed to rein in shaft technology?

[JESII]

It's time to support the USGA and their efforts at dialing back the specs for I & B.

Any suggestions, Pat?


Mine would be to sell the idea that courses should be prepared in a way that strongly rewards accuracy and subtlely penalizes innaccuracy. MAINTENANCE.

[redanman]

Sorry PJM, Jr., the world IS flat.  

It's obvious that you haven't read Thomas L. Friedman's new book.  

Seriously, I must thank my twin brother John V for letting me read 20 pages of this book in his living room and getting me to go out and buy and read it.

[Jordan Wall]

Mine would be to sell the idea that courses should be prepared in a way that strongly rewards accuracy and subtlely penalizes innaccuracy. MAINTENANCE.

Now theres an idea.

Forget the oober good golf balls and long shafts.  Use like 42 or 43 inch shafts with regular golf balls (pro-v1 is anything but regular) and have players get their length from roll in the fairway.  Have them play golf the way it was meant to be played and see how they do.  Tiger, Mr. 60% fairway guy, and same with Phil and the longer guys, might actually have to think before they hit the ball.  Heck, even Camillo Villegas hit an iron from 275 yards out from the rough yesterday.  I think maintanence is a great[/color] way to go.  

Wouldnt you like to see Pavin win another major or maybe Funk??

[Bill_McBride]

[It's time to support the USGA and their efforts at dialing back the specs for I & B.

Pat, what efforts are you referring to?  Is there a real effort at the USGA to roll back the ball or any other elements of I & B?  One of the big problems in this whole situation is the abdication of authority by the one agency with the capability of doing something about the problem.

I wish it were otherwise, but almost all new courses have tips in excess of 7,400 yards.  Restorations are doing the same.  At the Wigwam, Forrest Richardson was able to add enough back tees at the Gold Course to get this classic course playing over 7,200 yards.

Just curious if you know something about a real, genuine effort by the USGA to reverse the tide.

[JESII]

Actually Jordan,

I really don't give a damn what the guys on TV do. I watch alot of golf on TV, but would have no interest in taking anything I see on TV to my home course, either as an example of maintenance preparation or defensive design. Frankly I don't think TV golf should influence the real world of golf course operations. Unfortunately I would be in the minority if I were involved in golf course operations.

[Jordan Wall]

Actually Jordan,

I really don't give a damn what the guys on TV do. I watch alot of golf on TV, but would have no interest in taking anything I see on TV to my home course, either as an example of maintenance preparation or defensive design. Frankly I don't think TV golf should influence the real world of golf course operations. Unfortunately I would be in the minority if I were involved in golf course operations.

Maybe you dont care about what the guys on TV do or how they play, but wouldnt you like to see your home course finally playing fast and firm with semi-long rough that would penalize a bad shot??  I know it would sure make my home course more interesting!

[JESII]

Absolutely Jordan,

I think too many people involved in the operations of a golf course (greens committees and developers) make decisions as to the presentation of their course based on what they see on TV.

For a ball to stop off of a 10 handicappers 5-iron approach the same as it does for Tiger you need an oversaturated green. For a course to be ready to challenge Tiger just in case he shows up it must stretch every hole to its logistical maximum. These are the mistakes I would like to see avoided, because as we are all learning, Tiger is buying or building his own course down in Florida. Let him worry about Tiger-proofing.

[Kevin_Reilly]

Unless, you consider that Mickelson declared that he gained an additional 15-20 yards by going to a 47 inch shaft.

If even a small percentage of Mickelson's ad nauseum claims of 15-20 yd distance gains were true, he'd be averaging about 460 yds off the tee.  With his three wood.

His distance claims are perpetual fodder on equipment discussion boards.

Not to argue with your general post, but Mickelson is probably the least credible guy to use as evidence.

[Paul_Turner]

From the data I have, if you increase a 40 gram shaft from 46 inches to 50 inches and optimize the head weight accordingly, then the gain is 3 yards.  

If new equipment was introduced this year, so far it hasn't increased distance.  We're still at the levels of 3 years ago.

[Ryan Farrow]

Maybe you dont care about what the guys on TV do or how they play, but wouldnt you like to see your home course finally playing fast and firm with semi-long rough that would penalize a bad shot??  I know it would sure make my home course more interesting!

I think a lot of the course I play at are hard enough. Making your home course any harder probably won't please anyone else except  you. Keep in mind how awful the average golfer actually is. Growing the rough thicker for them will be sure to add some time to the round.

[Patrick_Mucci]

From the data I have, if you increase a 40 gram shaft from 46 inches to 50 inches and optimize the head weight accordingly, then the gain is 3 yards.  

If new equipment was introduced this year, so far it hasn't increased distance.  We're still at the levels of 3 years ago.

Ergo, a 42 inch shaft would only result in a 3 yard loss of distance ?   ?  ?

Think of all the control those fellows would get with a 42 inch shaft and only a 3 yard loss in distance.

I wonder, if they went to 38 inches, if they'd only lose another 3 yards and be straight as an arrow ?

If a golfer hits a ball 300 yards, why wouldn't a 46 to 50 inch shaft increase distance in the magnitude of 26 yards ?

Kevin Reilly,

Forget Mickelson, forget Singh, forget Love III, but whatever you do, don't forget Archimedes of Syracuse, not to be confused with Archimedes of Rochester or Albany.

It's only a matter of time before the hi-techies figure out how to combine control with distance and 300 yard drives will become pedestrian.

JES II,

Maintainance FAVORS the long hitter, it doesn't penalize him.

RJ Daley,

Height, by itself isn't the critical element.
Shoulder width and arm length are but two of the three fulcrums in the swing, the club being the third.

Bill McBride,

Walter Driver was chairman of the I&B committee.
He's now the President of the USGA.
I suspect that he understands the problem and will try to resolve it.
One of the ways you support the USGA is by telling them so, by encouraging them to reign in equipment and the ball, and by contributing to them.

[ed_getka]

Patrick,
  300 yd drives ARE pedestrian. I was talking to someone the other day about the Nationwide Tour guys playing in Australia, and from what I was told these kids are utterly clueless as to how to do anything other than hit the ball as hard and as far as they can.
   This whole golf technology thing sure reminds me of tennis which I used to love to watch. Then the huge rackets came along and tennis devolved into a power game of who hits the booming serves, except at Roland Garros which is still pretty interesting to watch IMHO.

[Joe Hancock]

I was talking to someone the other day about the Nationwide Tour guys playing in Australia, and from what I was told these kids are utterly clueless as to how to do anything other than hit the ball as hard and as far as they can.

Ed,

You know darn well that can't be true and survive at any level of competition. I'd say our games have tendancies towards utter cluelessness..you've seen me putt so many times, you know what I mean!

Joe

[Craig Sweet]

Johnny Miller said it again today....my mistake...it isn't the shaft that needs dialing back, its the square grooves in wedges.

His claim is the deep, square grooves makes it way too easy to get out of the rough with spin on the ball, thus holding the green.

[Paul_Turner]

Patrick

The data I have is from "How Golf Clubs Really Work and How to Optimize Their Designs".  It's an excellent book.  They test a variety of shaft lengths and weights with real golfers and computer simulation.  I can't type it all out, but the bottom line is that increasing beyond 46-48 inches gives only small potential gain in distance.

As for accuracy, they didn't find a strong trend from testing players with shafts in the 43-49 inch range.  

So if all the pros move right up to the 48 inch limit,  the gains are going to be very small.  As will the loss in accuracy.

They also extrapolated to a theoretical weightless shaft...about 5 yards from current weights.

[Bill_McBride]

Patrick, my wife and I remain members of the USGA in spite of my misgivings about their direction.  Mistakes like the Russian Tea Room (what's happened there, have they sold and made a bundle?), USGA Journal (I really looked forward to seeing that magazine every month), and allowing the I & B mfrs to run away with the game, have all caused me to consider cancelling our membership.

But I haven't, and won't, because I have hopes they will do whatever it takes to rein in the equipment, and I think they do a good job otherwise of maintaining golf's traditions.

I truly hope that Walter Driver has the gumption to put a stop to the progress and start the needed rollback.  I can't see where Fred Ridley did anything.  Maybe Mr. Driver's background in I & B will help.  Let's hope so.

[jeffwarne]

Patrick,
Shafts, balls,size of driver heads.In my opinion especially the ball.
All should be regulated-and a solution implemented that dials back distance
Players didn't go to long drivers much before graphite and titanium because of weight issues and don't often go to it now for accuracy reasons as you state.(but that may change)
The one possible problem with limiting absolute length of drivers would be the appearance of a mythical gifted 7 foot golfer.
Perhaps a better solution would be the way baseball limits bats at the amateur level.i.e. a 30 inch bat has to weigh 27 or so  ounches . I'm not sure of the exact formula(and it varies by age and skill division) but a certain length has to be a certain weight.
In other words if you wanted a 48 inch driver it would have to weigh more thus negating your ability to swing it faster.
Yet this would still allow the future super freak 7 footer to have a reasonable posture assuming he had the corresponding strength to swing a heavier club.

As a side note i beleive kids kill it today because they learn light clubs at an early age and can create speed.(my kindegarten son can literally hit it as far as I can when I use a club his length (about 25-30 inches) because it's light enough for him to rip it)
When we were learning with cut down steel clubs they were too heavy and we never really learned to maximize our speed potential.

[John Keenan]

This topic has been discussed quite a bit of late and for good reason.

I have noted that despite what some may think we are no where near the end of technology improvement in golf equipment. Many strongly stated that in effect, " all technology has a limit after which improvements are minimal and in golf we are there" I would disagree we are only mid way through this so length will continue to improve.

For the PGA tour pro the 48 inch driver is just a matter of a year or two away. They will find a way to improve the control issue. The other option is improvement in wedges allowing for even less care as to where the ball goes. The area of shaft technology is where we will see the major improvements witness this new  Russian material noted on an earlier post. We have only seen the start of this evolution of advances in golf technology.

Will all these advances help me, not likely as my swing speed is too slow. I may see marginal improvements but nothing like what a Tiger, VJ DL3 will.

[PThomas]

It's time to support the USGA and their efforts at dialing back the specs for I & B.

Patrick, some of us have been waiting for the USGA to do something about the ball for a long long time

I'll believe it when I see it

Ace McBride has a lot more patience than me and a lot of others as well, I think, cause I cancelled my USGA "membership" at least 5 years ago

[A.G._Crockett]

Unless, you consider that Mickelson declared that he gained an additional 15-20 yards by going to a 47 inch shaft.

If even a small percentage of Mickelson's ad nauseum claims of 15-20 yd distance gains were true, he'd be averaging about 460 yds off the tee.  With his three wood.

His distance claims are perpetual fodder on equipment discussion boards.

Not to argue with your general post, but Mickelson is probably the least credible guy to use as evidence.

Agreed, and to take this one step further, imagine what might have happened if Mickelson had stayed with the game plan of his Masters year instead of reverting to chasing distance again.

[Mike_Young]

If the size of the sweetspot is limited...shafts will not become longer

[Steve Pozaric]

If the size of the sweetspot is limited...shafts will not become longer

Except it is not.  While absolute head size has been limited, the use of high tech materials (comp drivers) and new designs (Nike SQ with elongated size and Cleveland HiBore with the scooped designs) will enable the sweet spot to grow in size - within certain parameters, at least.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()