[Garland Bayley]

Physics 101

The COR of a wooden driver head is .79 (if I recall correctly). The COR of a modern titanium driver head is limited to .83. Other than this difference, it make no difference whether you use wood or titanium. If you want to roll back the driver, just legislate .79 COR for all driver materials. There is no need to force people to use the inferior wood material. And, those tour pros that use it would be at no disadvantage.

[Paul_Turner]

Garland

Is that 0.79 COR for wooden club with a modern ball?

COR is a constant that applies to the entire collision.  When clubs were solid and wooden the COR was determined by the ball.  It's only when Callaway started achieving the spring like effect (trampoline) that the driver design influenced (increased) the COR.

[TEPaul]

"It's only when Callaway started achieving the spring like effect (trampoline) that the driver design influenced (increased) the COR."

PaulT:

Just as a bit of historic fact (trivia?) apparently the first evidence of COR (trampoline effect) in driver faces happened with the Wilson Co. with a composite face in a wooden driver. This has seemingly been confirmed by both the company and Thomas. Can't remember the date but perhaps the late '70s or early '80s. It was apparently an example of the USGA not exactly discovering it but the company submitting the club to them for testing with the notification that was something along the lines of; "We seem to have some kind of anomaly here."  

I don't believe the USGA put any COR rule or reg (such as .083) on driver COR at that time but that's when they apparently became aware things had changed in that vein. Another example of the USGA having to react to something coming at them down the R&D pipeline they weren't aware of had to probably make a test for, determine the distance effects of and figure out how to regulate it. They had actually had some wording in the rules and regs about "springlike effect" before that but this seems to be the first evidence of an actual change in driver COR.  

[Rick Wolffe]

Hi Kelly,

From my personal playing experience and observations of hickory golf, it does not matter if you hit a modern ball with a persimmon head versus the old wound balls...in fact the modern ball flies farther, and overall it performs much better than the balata wound ball. 

Deviating from the subject slightly, I always enjoy my once a year opportuity to play in the Evans/NJSGA caddie scholarship fundraiser at Hawk Pointe, but this year I missed the golf at Hawk Pointe to catch a flight to Sweden.  I had the good fortune to be in 6th playing of the Hickory Grail and the 12th playing of the Swedish Hickory Championship (although I had to WD from the Swedish Hickory with an foot injury the day of the event which resulted from my play in two matches in the Hickory Grail competition the day before).

Almost everyone that played in the Hickory Grail and the Swedish Hickory Open played a modern ball...although there may have been a few "die hards" with some replica haskels in the field. 

This was quite an event with over 180 entries and was played at Falsterbo Golf Club an old line links course which is featured in The New World Golf Atlas.  We had many professionals and top flight amateurs competing in the field including two European Tour winners, and one of the pros played on a victorious European Ryder Cup team.  In Europe playing retro is increasing in popularity and is longer considered a pastime for a bunch of history geeks.

Posted below are the scores from this medal competition,



Can anybody identify the European Tour players?

[Garland Bayley]

The old balls had high spin. Therefore, the old drivers had lower loft. I believe it would not be possible to optimally hit a modern ball with an old wooden driver. However, if you build a wooden driver with more loft, it would be able to hit the modern ball well.

The COR figures I reported wee reported in a technical article I read at the time the USGA put the limit in effect. I would have to think that they would have used the same ball to produce the report. However, I suspect it does not make any difference. I suspect that golf ball makers would have to be making all there balls to make the maximum allowed by the initial velocity test. Therefore, in that test I believe they would all have the same COR.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Rick,

I've often pondered the same or a related question.

Should everyone have to use the same "set" of clubs ?

Should there be a uniformity in the implements used by competitors in competitions.

Driver, 3, 4 or 5 wood, irons 1-L or hybid and irons 3-L and putter.

I happen to like the idea but doubt it will get any traction due to the dynamic between the manufacturers and the game of golf.

I also think it's easier to regulate the one vital component to the game, the ball.

Let's have them tackle that issue first.

I believe that ANGC and The Masters are the only hope being the catalyst for establishing a competition ball.

[Paul_Turner]

Garland

The COR measured in "Search for the Perfect Swing" published in 1968 was 0.70.

Tom

I didn't know about the composite wood and COR influence.  I guess it must have been pretty small, cos I just can't see much compressive elasticity in wood.

[Rick Wolffe]

Hi Pat

Thank you for your thoughts...let me clarify my remarks, I never suggested a uniform set of clubs...rather I suggested that hollow headed clubs not be permitted at competitons at the professional level...which would mean a return to the solid persimmon headed woods of the early 1980's.  I would leave the ball at its present specs and club manufacturers would have significant leeway to design clubs with solid wooden heads.

Quoting Dick Rugge, "Compared to modern drivers, the wooden club is probably about two inches shorter, about two ounces heavier, and has such a small head and sweet spot that great golfers have to slow down their swings. 'Hitting it on the screws' used to really mean something."

It won't be that difficult for the Tour to just come out and say our rules of competition are going back to wooden heads for all professional competitions for the Tour, the Champions Tour and the Nationwide Tour.   They would not be ruling on the legality of a hollow headed clubs play in anyone elses competitions.  If the Europeans and Asian tours did not follow...the American Tour pros would be allowed to upgrade to can hammed drivers to compete in their tournaments...the switch back and forth between the clubs would not be difficult for tour pros...and as a weak amateur player, I can attest to going back and forth between my hickory clubs and steel clubs with ease.

I'm sure happy the pros play with solid wooden baseball bats at all levels of the Minor and Major League Baseball.  The best college and high school players are able to transition between the hollow aluminum composite bats and the solid wooden bats.  The ones that can't are identified quickly and do not survive at the professional level.

If they did roll back the woods and hybrids to solid persimmon, how many tour pros today would not survive on the PGA Tour because they can't hit the ball on the screws as Nicklaus, Hogan, Player, Trevino, Nelson and the other greats did with regularity.  For too many years now our tour pros have been getting away with hitting it all over the face of their canned ham drivers.

[TEPaul]

"I guess it must have been pretty small, cos I just can't see much compressive elasticity in wood."

PaulT:

Actually it was some kind of plastic material that was a face inert in wood club.

[Craig Sweet]

Threads like this make me laugh...if you want to drive (no pun intended) more people form the game go ahead and roll back to difficult to hit irons and woods...and a ball that goes 250 yards when the BEST players hit it square...

[DMoriarty]

I haven't seen any evidence within the PGA tour, at least, that the longest hitters have gained disproportionally more from all of the tech advances when compared with the shortest.

Some interesting studies at:
http://www.usga.org/equipment/research_studies/Research-and-Studies/

including one we've discussed here before "Do Long Hitters Get and Unfair Benefit" (from the ball) (see Appendix 3)

http://www.usga.org/news/2006/April/Speed-Vs--Distance--Do-Long-Hitters-Get-An-Unfair-Benefit-/

Rick

I agree with the Rugge statements that changes in the driver were more important.  Getting the optimum mass, lowering the center of percussion/gravity, the spring effect of the driver face, lighter and therefore longer shafts.

Paul Turner,   We are using Tour Players as an example, but I don,t think any of us are all that concerned with the tour.   But as to the question of whether, as a result of the new ball technology, faster swingers have gained disproportionately to slower swingers across the spectrum (a more relevant question to the architecture) the USGA study you site is an absolute joke.  While it purports to address this issue, it does no such thing.   See the other thread for an explanation.

As for your statements on C.O.R. I believe you are mistaken (as I believe you were five or six years ago when we last discussed the issue.)   Golf Clubs have a C.O.R. separate and apart from golf balls, and visa versa.   Last time you were claiming that C.O.R. and compression were identical, now you are lumping all objects together and claiming they have no separate C.O.R?

As for you not being convinced by anything anyone is saying, shall I file that away with your statements that technology and distance had peaked before the ProV1x?  

________________________________________

Threads like this make me laugh...if you want to drive (no pun intended) more people form the game go ahead and roll back to difficult to hit irons and woods...and a ball that goes 250 yards when the BEST players hit it square...

Craig.  I think Rick is suggesting requiring old clubs only at the highest level of golf.    I am not sure why you think that would impact those who have trouble making good contact.

Also, the 250 number is quite a bit low.   Many tour players were hitting it well past this with persimmons.  

But to play devil's advocate, do you really think that all this equipment has brought anyone to the game?  At least anyone who would stay?    Is golf in better shape now than before all this garbage?  Is it more enjoyable?  More accessible?

Would it be a bad thing if those who felt golf was all about the latest and greatest equipment found a new and different hobby?   I know they are doing some great things technologically with bass fishing and such.   Sonar that will pretty much locate and weigh the fish for you, for example.   Like a yardage finder only it works under water.    

Again, with apologies to those employed in the industry,  I have trouble equating what is good for equipment manufacturers and developers with what is good for golf.  

[Tony Ristola]

Many thanks for all the comments and discussion.

On whether manfacturers would object because they could not retool to make both...I would postulate that if done right, they would embrace it and substantially increase revenue and profit.

If we look to baseball for a reality check, the following two links are to Louisville Sluggers offering of aluminum and wooden bats:

http://www.slugger.com/baseball/aluminum/index.html

http://www.slugger.com/baseball/wood/index.html

Louisville Slugger is offical bat for Major League Baseball.  Wilson offers a full line of aluminum and composite bats for under the DeMarini brand for youth, little league, high school and college.  I don't think the PGA Tour would go the route of one exclusive supplier, and if I was Commish, I would allow pros to play with rolled back wooden headed equipment from the manufacturer of their choice.

If the PGA Tour rolled back competition clubs to solid wood heads and allowed all manufacturers to make clubs for professional players at all professional levels, I would think this could be BIG TIME revenue and profit positive for all the equipment manufacturers.

I'd go with a 10-club set and roll back the ball.
There is no way you'll get them using wood again.

.

[Sean_A]

Many thanks for all the comments and discussion.

On whether manfacturers would object because they could not retool to make both...I would postulate that if done right, they would embrace it and substantially increase revenue and profit.

If we look to baseball for a reality check, the following two links are to Louisville Sluggers offering of aluminum and wooden bats:

http://www.slugger.com/baseball/aluminum/index.html

http://www.slugger.com/baseball/wood/index.html

Louisville Slugger is offical bat for Major League Baseball.  Wilson offers a full line of aluminum and composite bats for under the DeMarini brand for youth, little league, high school and college.  I don't think the PGA Tour would go the route of one exclusive supplier, and if I was Commish, I would allow pros to play with rolled back wooden headed equipment from the manufacturer of their choice.

If the PGA Tour rolled back competition clubs to solid wood heads and allowed all manufacturers to make clubs for professional players at all professional levels, I would think this could be BIG TIME revenue and profit positive for all the equipment manufacturers.

I'd go with a 10-club set and roll back the ball.
There is no way you'll get them using wood again.

Tony

I too would personally like to see a 8, 9 or 10 club limit put in place.  It doesn't tackle the so called distance issue straight on, but it would serve to make golf more interesting from a spectating PoV because golfers would have to think much more about their choice of shots with far fewer weapons to get them out of jail.  I do believe a nock effect would be a reduction in distance.  This to me is the crux of the problem (top flight golf is boring to watch) rather than courses being altered.  I have always felt that courses are altered by memberships, not balls and that the altering of courses would continue regardless of the equipment used.  In other words, its a simplistic argument to blame the ball for altering classic courses.  

Ciao

[Paul_Turner]

David  Moriarty

The COR applies to the impact of the ball and club.  If you hit a ball made of play dough with a modern driver, the COR would be close to 0.  
A good explanation is here:

http://www.franklygolf.com/tgc/spring2.html

"COR is a measure of the efficiency of the transfer of energy between two colliding bodies"

Thomas breaks down the COR, giving a maximum COR of 0.768 for a standard ball, 110mph club speed with a rigid solid head.  Which allows a legal maximum contribution of about 0.06 from the driver's spring effect to give  0.83..

A higher compression ball does contribute to a higher COR.  If you're interested, the numbers are in "Search for the Perfect Swing".  Before the spring effect, variations in the COR were really determined by the ball.

Regarding the USGA report yes of course it only addresses the tour, but it did debunk the theory that the longest players on tour were gaining more than the shortest.  I posted if here because of your post which seemed to imply the opposite:

Unfortunately, I don't think Chad Campbell is the best pro to look at if we want to draw conclusions about distance.   Campbell is not a long hitter on Tour and while he did get around a 10 yard bump with the ProV1 but did not receive a similar bump with the ProV1x.  It could be that he doesn't like it or it could be that it doesn't do anything for his distance.  Likewise, it seems this particular club lacked the performance of the persimmons from the 80s

[Craig Sweet]

David....I think anything that makes striking a golf ball easier is good for the game....if golf is "struggling" today, it is NOT because of the equipment....unless you think the cost of the equipment is too high.

Personally I like to compare the technological advances in ski design and performance with those in golf equipment...modern skis have made the sport easier and more enjoyable and safer...and unlike golf and the constant braying about rolling back equipment, or a desire to play hickory, I do not see anyone wanting to go back to difficult to turn skinny skis, piss poor bindings, and leather boots.

[Rich Goodale]

I did my ranting and raving about the B&I issue 7-8 years ago, and things haven't changed one iota since then.  To me, the easiest and most sublime solution is limiting the number of clubs.  I'd vote for 8 as the right number, and if I had to be limited to that, my bag would be D/rescue/4/6/8/PW/SW(56 degree)/putter.

Pros for this solution:

--cheaper equipment outlay for players
--makes walking and carrying a no brainer
--encourages/demands shot making for all standards of player
--makes pros think rather than just measure and swing
--makes the ball issue largely irelevant (Wally U., just take your ball back to your crib and play with yourself!)
--more chance of pulling a cart girl if you and your bag are lean and mean
--demise/increased energy efficiency of the golf cart industry (how stupid/wasteful would it look to have 2 players and a total of 16 clubs)

Cons for this solution:

--need for legal fund to counter megabag manufacturer's law suits
--caddies need to learn to sell their services based on skill rather than just being a sherpa

Rich

[Sean_A]

I did my ranting and raving about the B&I issue 7-8 years ago, and things haven't changed one iota since then.  To me, the easiest and most sublime solution is limiting the number of clubs.  I'd vote for 8 as the right number, and if I had to be limited to that, my bag would be D/rescue/4/6/8/PW/SW(56 degree)/putter.

Pros for this solution:

--cheaper equipment outlay for players
--makes walking and carrying a no brainer
--encourages/demands shot making for all standards of player
--makes pros think rather than just measure and swing
--makes the ball issue largely irelevant (Wally U., just take your ball back to your crib and play with yourself!)
--more chance of pulling a cart girl if you and your bag are lean and mean
--demise/increased energy efficiency of the golf cart industry (how stupid/wasteful would it look to have 2 players and a total of 16 clubs)

Cons for this solution:

--need for legal fund to counter megabag manufacturer's law suits
--caddies need to learn to sell their services based on skill rather than just being a sherpa

Rich

Rich

I don't think there is any con so far as manufacturer law suits go.  Many guys have more sets of clubs than they need now with a 14 club rule.  Jeepers, a lot of guys probably have more than 14 totaling of drivers, putters, wedges and hybrids.  I don't think club sales would have to drop at all.  Clubs would get changed in and out of bags depending on the weather and the course.  I think most golfers would find a "need" to have more than 8 clubs even if they couldn't all be used on any given day.  I keep a few more clubs in the boot "just in case" I want to change one of my standard 10 or 11.   

Ciao

[Rich Goodale]

Thanks, Sean, however, I can't see Wally U. and his Commotions being happy in a scenario in which players only rotate 8 clubs (7 if you exclude the putter, which is really not a "club" anyway.....) every 2-10 years.  As I see it, we're talking about a ~50% reduction in revenue.  As a former businessperson, I'd not be happy with this.  would you?

Rich

[Sean_A]

Thanks, Sean, however, I can't see Wally U. and his Commotions being happy in a scenario in which players only rotate 8 clubs (7 if you exclude the putter, which is really not a "club" anyway.....) every 2-10 years.  As I see it, we're talking about a ~50% reduction in revenue.  As a former businessperson, I'd not be happy with this.  would you?

Rich

Rich

If I were involved in the business I would be pushing for a max of 20 clubs.  If this was not a feasible approach (which I suspect it isn't) I would be looking to reinvent the set the clubs which would probably mean the elimination (not that numbered clubs have much meaning now) of numbered clubs as we know it. I certainly wouldn't waste time and money in fighting a hopeless case in court.  Perhaps sales may drop, but they could rise with the price of the development of new "specialty" clubs beyond the standard ones of putters, wedges, drivers and hybrids.  Look how much more money a driver costs compared to bog standard iron.  The heart of the matter is to convince the public that the 8 clubs in his bag are in no way bog standard.  Manufacturers seem to do well on selling all sorts of golf clubs based on marketing - what would be any different? 

Ciao 

[Brent Hutto]

Everyone I know is already convinced that a 3-iron or a 4-iron are not "standard" but merely something the club companies stick you with that you have to store in the closet.

[Sean_A]

Everyone I know is already convinced that a 3-iron or a 4-iron are not "standard" but merely something the club companies stick you with that you have to store in the closet.

Brent

That is part of my point.  I think we are going to see a change in what a set of clubs looks like off the rack at some point in the future.  Eventually somebody is gonna shake up the standard set. 

Ciao

[Ken Moum]

I too would personally like to see a 8, 9 or 10 club limit put in place.  It doesn't tackle the so called distance issue straight on, but it would serve to make golf more interesting from a spectating PoV because golfers would have to think much more about their choice of shots with far fewer weapons to get them out of jail.  I do believe a nock effect would be a reduction in distance.

Having watched some good amateurs play the game lately, I suspect that limiting the number of clubs would encourage bomb and gouge, not discourage it.

As it stands these guys don't need any fairway woods at all, and the only time they hit a long iron is on a par three or par five.

The ones I know could play with a driver, a hybrid, and five short irons, probably 35*, 40*, 50*, 55* and 60* for eight clubs without much effect on their scoring.

K

[Rich Goodale]

You are right, K.

What you fail to note, however, is that every single golfer on this site, from hopeless hacker to lurking tour pro, could "play with.....(any).....eight clubs without much effect on their scoring."

Rich

[Brent Hutto]

For my own poor game, eight clubs is about the point where I need to be clever in choosing the particular ones to include. I can play with ten clubs instead of fourteen and it can be just about any reasonable set of ten with no effect on score at all. If I try to take it down to seven (as I've done many times) it's possible to end up wishing for the same omitted club over and over. Eight clubs makes it pretty easy to select if it's a course I know well.

Generally if I'm carrying my bag I go ahead and put nine or ten clubs in, leaving out a couple more doesn't seem to save much perceived weight. If I have my three-wheeler, what the heck I put 'em all in the there.

ObFirmAndFast: I've noticed that carrying a couple extra clubs comes in handy when the course is wet. I have a lot of trouble making clean contact with less than a stock, full swing off a tight, muddy lie. I particularly don't want a bunch of 3/4-swing wedge or short iron shots when hitting off something just shy of casual water. That can add strokes in a hurry.

[TEPaul]

Richard The Magnificent:


That post #41 (particularly the pros and cons) is just so Goodalish and magnificent (and hilarious!). Only you can come up with stuff like that!

YOU are indeed a 266 yard REDAN type of guy!

I can just see you bringing a myopic standardized thinking American to a tee to the left of NB's redan from 266 yards and listening to him scream: "What the hell is this thing, a par 3 or a par 4 and how am I supposed to play it without knowing?" and you responding, "AHA, EUREKA you mush-brained architectural troglodyte!"

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()