[Rob Marshall]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/golf/phil-mickelson-blasts-usga-for-potential-rule-limiting-the-length-of-drivers/ar-AANP2QZ?li=BBnbfcL

[Tom Bacsanyi]

I greatly enjoy Phil trolling the USGA. Especially since a 46" max shaft length will achieve nothing in terms of out of control distance. And a very tall player with short arms could argue it's actually discriminatory (not saying it's a good argument, but still).


Point Phil.

[Kyle Harris]

I greatly enjoy Phil trolling the USGA. Especially since a 46" max shaft length will achieve nothing in terms of out of control distance. And a very tall player with short arms could argue it's actually discriminatory (not saying it's a good argument, but still).


Point Phil.

Are you cashing a check from Callaway, too?

[Tom Bacsanyi]

I greatly enjoy Phil trolling the USGA. Especially since a 46" max shaft length will achieve nothing in terms of out of control distance. And a very tall player with short arms could argue it's actually discriminatory (not saying it's a good argument, but still).


Point Phil.

Are you cashing a check from Callaway, too?

No, but I'll provide my address if you have a connection.


But really though, shouldn't the USGA be saving all its political and financial capital for an assault on the BALL ITSELF?


Bryson is gonna carry the ball 300+ if you force him to use a 42" shaft. Kyle Berkshire hit a 300 yard 8 IRON. What's the shaft length on that?

[Peter Pallotta]

The USGA has no greater friend than Phil Mickelson, to whom they owe a debt of gratitude. His is the much needed voice of dissent in any potential rule change -- because as a popular foil with a clear & vested interest in no new limits on technology, his displeasure will play as proof that the USGA is serious about tackling the issue, and that it is willing to take the heat to make significant & impactful changes. In other words: with PM's complaint, a 46 inch driver rule suddenly seems like a bold step! The USGA should be sending him a thank you note, and some embossed silver or crystalware.

[Thomas Dai]

As I’ve said before, forget about the clubs, just re-calibrate the damn ball!
Atb

[Erik J. Barzeski]

As I’ve said before, forget about the clubs, just re-calibrate the damn ball!

Oy.

[Kyle Henderson]

I’m just glad you can’t anchor your putter against your torso anymore, unless you testify that your intent was to hover that hand a micron or more above the skin.

[jeffwarne]

As I’ve said before, forget about the clubs, just re-calibrate the damn ball!
Atb

Another half measure by the USGA.(if true)
It doesn't matter what one thinks about the increased distance players hit it today.
Very, very,very few players use a 46+ inch driver, and IMHO it discriminates against a mythical 7 foot player, as well as a short accurate driver(LPGA) developing the skills to hit it longer to compete, while maintaining reasonable control.
Just like 2010 grooves and the partial anchoring ban, it doesn't address the actual issue.
and if the USGA thinks there's no distance or scale issue, I'm cool with that too, even if I disagree.
Just hate the half measures.
 

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Another half measure by the USGA.(if true)
It doesn't matter what one thinks about the increased distance players hit it today.
Very, very,very few players use a 46+ inch driver, and IMHO it discriminates against a mythical 7 foot player, as well as a short accurate driver(LPGA) developing the skills to hit it longer to compete, while maintaining reasonable control.
Just like 2010 grooves and the partial anchoring ban, it doesn't address the actual issue.
and if the USGA thinks there's no distance or scale issue, I'm cool with that too, even if I disagree.
Just hate the half measures.

The limit was already 48". It's not like they went from no limit to (possibly) 46". So… you were opposed to the 48" limit, too? Because if not, then you're just disagreeing with where they (possibly) draw the line.

Few people play > 46" drivers… but that's now. What about five years from now? Ten?

[jeffwarne]

Erik,
I was also against the 48 limit.(a fairly new rule)
Just not an issue and again someone with talent who can gain distance and still hit it straight enough? And then there's a tall player with short arms.
Good on them if they can wield such a weapon..
Don't know a soul who plays a 48 inch driver, but at 6 foot 5 with short arms, as I age, if I found a way though skill and practice to control it and still compete, why legislate away that skill?
The USGA has wrung its hands for years about distance gains.
and this is what they come up with?


As far as 48's a few years from now?
Now you're worried about distance?

[Erik J. Barzeski]

I was also against the 48 limit.(a fairly new rule)

Yes, I remember Rocky Thompson's driver, too.

Just not an issue and again someone with talent who can gain distance and still hit it straight enough? And then there's a tall player with short arms.

How does this tall player with short arms hit a wedge?

Don't know a soul who plays a 48 inch driver, but at 6 foot 5 with short arms, as I age, if I found a way though skill and practice to control it and still compete, why legislate away that skill?

Because that's the role of the USGA. Should you be allowed to swing that 12' long driver like that one trick shot guy has? They felt the need to set a limit, so they set a limit and now they're changing it slightly.

The USGA has wrung its hands for years about distance gains.
and this is what they come up with?

It's one thing. It was floated last year, you'll recall, as being the most likely first step.

I don't think you even think this is their entire plan.

As far as 48's a few years from now?
Now you're worried about distance?

Nope. Just… y'all complain that the USGA isn't looking to the future, then as part of your reason to dislike this you say "nobody's really using these long drivers now…". (Paraphrased).

[jeffwarne]

I was also against the 48 limit.(a fairly new rule)

Yes, I remember Rocky Thompson's driver, too.

Just not an issue and again someone with talent who can gain distance and still hit it straight enough? And then there's a tall player with short arms.

How does this tall player with short arms hit a wedge?

Don't know a soul who plays a 48 inch driver, but at 6 foot 5 with short arms, as I age, if I found a way though skill and practice to control it and still compete, why legislate away that skill?

Because that's the role of the USGA. Should you be allowed to swing that 12' long driver like that one trick shot guy has? They felt the need to set a limit, so they set a limit and now they're changing it slightly.

The USGA has wrung its hands for years about distance gains.
and this is what they come up with?

It's one thing. It was floated last year, you'll recall, as being the most likely first step.

I don't think you even think this is their entire plan.

As far as 48's a few years from now?
Now you're worried about distance?

Nope. Just… y'all complain that the USGA isn't looking to the future, then as part of your reason to dislike this you say "nobody's really using these long drivers now…". (Paraphrased).

RE: the wedge_ I just bend over a lot



No. just another example of wanting to appear to do something, but doing nothing, and punishing a shorter hitter utilizing a skill.
If they want to limit distance, the ball is the low hanging fruit-and it's only one variable.


grooves were touted as a distance defense(taking a driver supposedly out of one's hands), then something very few actually do (48+ drivers, now 46)


I wish they were looking to the future, but they're just knee jerk reacting to something that's not even happening.
How'd that anchor ban work out?

[Erik J. Barzeski]

No. just another example of wanting to appear to do something, but doing nothing, and punishing a shorter hitter utilizing a skill.
If they want to limit distance, the ball is the low hanging fruit-and it's only one variable.

I don't agree with that categorization. I don't think it's "doing nothing" and I don't think it's really "punishing a shorter hitter utilizing a skill." You can't use a 12" tall tee, either. They draw a line somewhere.

grooves were touted as a distance defense(taking a driver supposedly out of one's hands), then something very few actually do (48+ drivers, now 46)

Few use 48" now. Again, that may change if this rule didn't/doesn't go through.

I wish they were looking to the future, but they're just knee jerk reacting to something that's not even happening.
How'd that anchor ban work out?

I don't see anywhere near as many people using that sort of putting method. So… about as well as they wanted?

[Mike_Trenham]

They are focused on the wrong end of the driver.  Clubhead size and weight is the real issue.

[Tom_Doak]

The USGA are all from the Professional / Managerial class so they choose to govern incrementally, like the Democratic party.


Limiting the length of the shaft was seen as easy because it does not directly threaten any manufacturer's market share -- nobody is the leader in 48-inch drivers right now.  But Callaway is still going to push back, because they are a corporate entity who thinks nobody should regulate them at all, and they don't want to set any kind of precedent.


The only surprising part of the discussion to me is that Jeff is in favor of allowing players to use their "skill" to hit a 48-inch driver, even though he's usually in favor of limiting distance.  Nobody was using a 48-inch driver with a persimmon head; they might have whiffed.  Since they're governing like Democrats, though, maybe they will means-test driver length and let taller players use a longer driver?  Or is it shorter players that need it to compensate?  I'm not clear.


So, this is weenie governance, but who expected more in 2021?

[jeffwarne]

The USGA are all from the Professional / Managerial class so they choose to govern incrementally, like the Democratic party.


Limiting the length of the shaft was seen as easy because it does not directly threaten any manufacturer's market share -- nobody is the leader in 48-inch drivers right now.  But Callaway is still going to push back, because they are a corporate entity who thinks nobody should regulate them at all, and they don't want to set any kind of precedent.


The only surprising part of the discussion to me is that Jeff is in favor of allowing players to use their "skill" to hit a 48-inch driver, even though he's usually in favor of limiting distance.  Nobody was using a 48-inch driver with a persimmon head; they might have whiffed.  Since they're governing like Democrats, though, maybe they will means-test driver length and let taller players use a longer driver?  Or is it shorter players that need it to compensate?  I'm not clear.


So, this is weenie governance, but who expected more in 2021?

I like to keep 'em guessing.
As you point out, very, very few were using a 48 inch driver with persimmon and steel(the same as now quite frankly), though Rocky Thomson used a 52 inch driver quite well.
My point has been that the ball(multilayer), face that caves in and rebounds are the low hanging fruit, and what has changed the most in distance gains.
Shaft lightness and length are huge factors too(steel shafted drivers used to be 43-43.5 inches long-mine was 44-now they are generally 45 sometimes 46) , but changing the shaft weight affects lots more than elite players, and especially the weaker, older or female player.


I'm just saying there IS a tradeoff when one wields a 48 inch driver or more, and wielding it well is a skill.
By going after that, they've taken that weapon from an LPGA player, and done NOTHING to a PGA Tour player, and once again have dodged the issue almost completely, other than Michelson...


So I'm against yet another half measure that does nothing, as it distracts form what I believe is a real issue-the scale of how far the ball goes and how big the courses tend to get as a reaction-to say nothing of the long and wrong factor with young wild drivers and the fact nearly all driving ranges are becoming irons only for anyone with any speed at all.

[Thomas Dai]

Suspect the reason not many use or have been using 48” drivers is that not many players, elite or otherwise, occasional outlier excepted, can hit them well enough to make them worth using. Same with much longer than 43”/44” in the days when steel shafts were the norm.
Reckon most would likely be using them if they were able to do so successfully but the fact most players, elite or otherwise, aren’t says something about their usefulness. The fact that they aren’t made available as standard by most manufacturers should tell us something as well.
Deal with the ball first and then if necessary deal with the clubs.

Atb


PS - anyone tried fit a 48” club into their flight travel hold-all without removing the head? Or even fit one into the boot of their car without taking the head off? And of course until quite recently removable headed clubs weren’t available.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

So I'm against yet another half measure that does nothing

This isn't a half measure nor does it "do nothing."

It's a step. A small step, but one step. They're likely not sitting back, if this is enacted, and saying "okay, we've solved it. We are done now."

[jeffwarne]

So I'm against yet another half measure that does nothing

This isn't a half measure nor does it "do nothing."

It's a step. A small step, but one step. They're likely not sitting back, if this is enacted, and saying "okay, we've solved it. We are done now."

LOL-we've both switched sides.
You're defending a distance reducing measure and I'm championing a distance increasing one.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

LOL-we've both switched sides.
You're defending a distance reducing measure and I'm championing a distance increasing one.

I'm not anti-rollback. I'm anti-lousy-ill-informed-stupid-rollback. And bifurcation.

[jeffwarne]

Amen. From a legitimate bomb hitter.




John Daly


@PGA_JohnDaly





I totally agree with you brother but why don’t they just change the cheapest thing made in golf……the #golfball#bringthegolfballback NO common sense!


Quote Tweet







Phil Mickelson


@PhilMickelson
 · Aug 27

Word is USGA is soon rolling back driver length to 46inches.This is PATHETIC.1st it promotes a shorter more violent swing (injury prone,) doesn’t allow for length of arc to create speed,and during our 1st golf boom in 40 years,our amateur gov body keeps trying to make it less fun

[Peter Flory]

I greatly enjoy Phil trolling the USGA. Especially since a 46" max shaft length will achieve nothing in terms of out of control distance. And a very tall player with short arms could argue it's actually discriminatory (not saying it's a good argument, but still).


Point Phil.

That is a great argument.  Yao Ming is the classic example of a tall person with short arms.  His PW is 45" and still looks like a child's club when he holds it. 


Driver length is self limiting due to the loss of control that players experience with longer clubs.  No need to regulate that aspect.  If clubheads were still traditional in form, size, and material, then it would be even more insane to play with an abnormally long driver. 

[Jeff Schley]

Omg Peter that photo of Yao and Player looks photo shopped as it is so much of a disparity.   However I know it isn't.  To think they both need to use the same length club is odd to regulate.

[jeffwarne]

Omg Peter that photo of Yao and Player looks photo shopped as it is so much of a disparity.   However I know it isn't.  To think they both need to use the same length club is odd to regulate.

Definitely a half measure

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()