DaveP043

And just like that, the driver showed up on my doorstep this afternoon. It looks like I'll have a decent week or so of weather to play on the course with it, and there's a nearby indoor Trackman facility if I decide I want to see numbers. New toys are fun!

A friend used Bonnie Wee to set up a trip I'll be going on this July. Considering the paucity of available tee times, due to both demand and to reservations that were pushed back due to Covid, Bonnie Wee did an amazing job of getting secure tee times on just about every famous course in the southern part of Scotland. The trip looks great, coach and driver, tee times, 4 star hotels. Looking at their website, this seems to be their chosen niche, luxury golf trips. Other people may choose to spend a little less money by economizing in some areas, less fancy lodging, self-drive, less famous courses, whatever. A really good trip planner should be not just able but WILLING to work with you to plan the trip you want to take. This isn't a knock on Bonnie Wee Golf, I have no idea what they could or would do, They DID make some changes to a couple of hotel plans, moving from "countryside" hotels 9Archerfield, between Muirfield and North Berwick) to in-town places (North Berwick Marine Hotel, . For the OP, you're a bit late in planning for the Summer of 2023, I think lots of courses and hotels will be folly booked, you may want to look to 2024 to bave better chances.

I mentioned that I was given a Precision Pro NX9 (I think that's the right model), which does have a nice strong magnet. I managed to lose it while playing in Southern Pines, apparently I hit some bumps that dislodged it from the cart's roof support. So even if the Cobalt did have the magnet, I probably woldn't use it. I've always looked at the rangefinder as a tool, not as a single source for information. Sure, I know a flag distance, maybe I'll try to shoot a carry distance over an obstacle, I'll look at a pin sheet or flag color, check out yardage markers if they're there, lots of factors will go into my final shot choice. I've never really used GPS consistently, very occasionally a phone app when I'm on a new course, but I agree that knowing a center distance, or maybe front and back, can help you from being stuck on the single flag distance. I don't think having a top-quality laser rangefinder will really change anyone's "best practice".

I can't say that I miss the magnet for my personal use, but I know a bunch of guys who do have rangefinders with the built-in magnet. Its simply one of the potential features that Cobalt has chosen not to include, and I believe a sizeable part of the market puts some value in that feature.

I was one of the MGS testers for the Sub70 Fairway woods last year, and remain very impressed with the 5-wood I tested. I'm considering changing out my 5-year old driver, and have just ordered a Sub70 849 Pro driver through their demo program. I'll have 10 days or so to evaluate the club. If I send it back, the total cost to me will be $20, if I keep it its just $200. I haven't read this whole thread, and haven't heard a lot about their drivers, so I'll so my best to report back my impressions.

Hahahaha, maybe the admins can get a "boo" reaction for us. Having two separate rules for golf balls (I know, testing methods, but really two different rules) does cause complications. R&D and manufacturing, marketing, players playing different balls in different events, its certainly not an ideal solution. And I have no doubt there will be push back, we've already seen that. As I have read over the past years, the USGA and R&A have specifically reached out to manufacturers and professional tours for input all along. I don't know whether pro tours will choose not to use the "short" ball, but it would surprise me. Manufacturers will fall in line, they won't want to be the manufacturer without a ball being played by on TV. I don't know what will happen, or which is the least problematic route, but it appears something will change within the rules to lower driving distance a bit. Any choice made will upset someone. And no matter what route is taken, most of us will adapt pretty quickly, while others will hold a grudge for the rest of their lives.

Let's look at the numbers posted, the USGA has estimated that a drive that goes 350 now will go 335 with the "new" golf ball, a loss of just over 4%. That's an estimate, but still well below the 6.5% you talk about. It might be 6.5%, it might be 10%, we don't know. And it might be non-linear, the decrease at slower swing speeds may be minimal. Again, I'd like to see some real projections, all I've read so far as those presented by the USGA. Who cares what players use when they're not competing? Most "casual non-competitive" players choose not to follow the rules a great deal of the time, why should we expect their adherence to the Equipment Rules be any better? As someone who's taken the time to read the Distance Insights reports, going back almost 4 years now, I'd say I'm the opposite of "small minded." I can understand the concern over continually increasing distance. Whether something "needs" to be done to slow or roll-back the increases is a separate opinion, and the USGA and R&A have made that evaluation. As for growing rough and narrowing the fairways, the USGA and R&A have exactly the same authority to require that as they have to limit physical conditioning, or club fitting, or instruction. None. They have exactly one tool to use, and that's the Equipment Rules. As much as I understand that distance is not a problem for the vast majority of golfers, I'm starting to think that any reduction would be best if it applies to all of us. Sure, we'd take a hit, maybe we'd lose 10 yards or so off our drives, but we'd still get to "play what the pros play". Heck, maybe that little loss of distance would encourage a lot more people to move up and play the appropriate tees.

Absolutely correct, your Reference Point for Relief is the Nearest Point of Complete Relief. That could be in a bush, on the side of a slope, in a bunch of rocks, or on a nice flat lie in the fairway, For those who want to find the exact reference, look to Clarification 16.1/1, titled Relief from Abnormal Course Condition May Result in Better or Worse Conditions

The MLR specifies certain test parameters, including a spin rate that's consistent with the goals of big hitters, but I have not read anything that limits ball spin in any way (max OR min). Some have suggested that regulations which require a ball to spin MORE could force strong players to voluntarily slow their swings in order to decrease the size of their misses. I don't know if that's even possible to regulate, but its definitely not the path chosen by the Ruling Bodies.

I agree, distance is an advantage, and will continue to be, and players will try to gain every bit of advantage available to them. I have no idea how much is yet to be gained through shaft design, or fitting procedures, or strength and technique improvements. The Ruling Bodies are using the one tool they have (equipment rules) to slow down (or roll back a little) distance gains, for what I believe are rational reasons.

To be clear, that was @RickyBobby_PR who said that, I was quoting him. I'm not sure how it ended up being attributed to me.

You're guessing here, none of us know exactly what will happen. I'm basing it on the USGA/R&A news release. The only time I've read 15% decrease was from some numbskull who quoted a 15-yard distance loss, per the same press release, and later in the article said something about a 15% loss of distance. Math is apparently not his strong suit. If you can find a responsible prediction for 15% distance loss, I'd be interested to read it.

I have just one question for everyone here. Have any of these factors not been discussed in 2019, when the initial Distance Insights report was issued? Or again in 2021, when the follow-up report came out? Or maybe last March, when two specific areas of study were announced? We've all been saying the same things, over and over, for close to 4 years now, and I don't think any of us is any closer to convincing their "opposition" to change their views. The announcement this week should not have been a surprise to anyone. Changing the ball in some way was the only practical way to stop or roll back driving distances through the rules. I'm not crazy about the potential for bifurcation, I wouldn't be crazy about rolling back distances for everyone, but having read a lot of the previously released information, I think some concerns over distance are valid. One thing I do wonder, at the end of it all, will they re-consider applying the revised testing procedures as a regular Rule, rather than an optional Local Rule? Is it better to avoid bifurcation issues? Consider, they're talking a 15-yard decrease for the longest players, guys who drive it 350. That's maybe 10 yards for me, carrying the ball 220 to 230. Depending on how the science of golf ball layers works, it might be even less loss for most players. So we take a one-time hit, we all lose a few yards, and in a few months we'll have adjusted to it. I know, we'll have guys saying "I remember when I was a LOT longer", but there already guys saying that. At least now it will be something other than their fading fitness and skill to complain about.

The R&A changed their criteria to agree with the USGA, where the minimum diameter has been 1.68 inches for almost forever. Here's a little more detail: https://www.usga.org/content/usga/home-page/articles/2017/05/rules-throwback--once-size-didn-t-always-fit-all.html Surprising to me, the larger ball wasn't adopted by the R&A for all play until 1990, although it was required in the Open Championship beginning in 1974.

I've read most of the Distance Insights reports, and there really ARE impacts based on increasing distance. There's no question many of them are based on imaging and marketing considerations, very very few courses are played by those really long hitters, but they still want the image of a "championship" length course. So courses get longer across the board, increasing the cost of building, and the cost of maintenance. Sure, an owner or manager could buck the trend, market differently, change maintenance practices, but on an industry-wide basis the cost for a "golf course" has increased at least in part due to increasing distance. I find it interesting that people (not you particularly) talk about how greedy and/or ego-driven the USGA and R&A are being here. These are non-profit operations, taking serious flak because they're trying to do what they believe is the right thing. The professional tours and the manufacturers who oppose the changes each have a very significant financial interest in maintaining the status quo. That's where "greed" comes in. I don't necessarily agree that distances should be decreased, or that bifurcation is the right way to do it, but I do believe that the Ruling Bodies aren't doing it for selfish reasons.