Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Minneapolis, MN

Player Profile

  • Age
  • Swing Speed
    91-100 mph
  • Handicap
  • Frequency of Play/Practice
    Multiple times per week
  • Player Type
    Weekend Golfer
  • Biggest Strength
    Short Game
  • Biggest Weakness
  • Fitted for Clubs

Recent Profile Visitors

3,695 profile views

storm319's Achievements

  1. This exaggerated perspective does not align with reality. First, course data over the past two decades does not support the course lengthening trend claims. According to the USGAs own data, the majority of course lengthening occurred pre1990. Also, no one on tour is regularly driving it 360+ nor does any data support that becoming the norm on tour in the next several decades if ever. I can’t find it right now, but someone posted data on GolfWRX showing the average par 4 2nd shot on tour being a 7 iron, not the driver wedge that those in favor of a rollback claim. The tendency for higher ranked names on tour (who tend to be longer than average) getting more tv exposer may be partially to blame for this perception. Lastly, the leaders of the ruling bodies have pretty much made it clear that this change really won’t be solving any of your perceived problems, they are simply moving the starting line back.
  2. With the COR, head size, and MOI limits, they set a limit that had not been reached yet. Ultimately people don’t miss what they never had. The groove rollback ended up being inconsequential (again what was the point) and the anchoring ban impacted so few people. This will be far more impactful and will impact far more golfers than any previous equipment regulation (except maybe the prior ball rollbacks, but again those impacted less golfers both times).
  3. You are misunderstanding bifurcation in this context. Tour issued equipment is still subject to the same regulations as retail equipment. Bifurcation would mean different regulations for different levels of play which would be a mess to navigate for future talent trying to ascend to the pro level (and potentially a financial roadblock if the OEMs don’t make it readily available at retail). Interactive team sports like baseball, basketball, football, or soccer where the ball is provided is not an apples to apples comparison because those sports have direct interaction between players where golf as an individual sport does not (it is just the player vs the course). As for bat materials in MLB, that is more about traditional aesthetics (mainly the sound) than performance as it is possible to make composite bats that perform similarly to wood from a COR perspective.
  4. The ruling bodies own data for the past two decades counters the course lengthening narrative that is primarily driving this (no point in bringing up anything from the prior century given that it has been clear that the ruling bodies do not intend to rollback distance levels prior to their 2002 joint statement line in the sand). Also, let’s not give too much credit to the ruling bodies. While they may have considered feedback on the “how”, it is clear that they did not consider any feedback on the “if” which means that the decision process was not as open as they led us to believe. Again, the PGAs and R&As have not been advocating for ANY change and being strongly against bifurcation does not mean they support a global rollback. Ultimately the ruling bodies are the ones making this change and they need to own it.
  5. Think about the likely millions of clubs that would no longer be conforming. Not exactly an environmentally or financially responsible decision. The USGA handled the COR limit correctly, cap it when they identified it as a problem and prior to mass adoption. The severely mishandled the size limit but it is way too late to rectify (they should have set the limit just above the Ping TISI in 1998 when they initially set the COR limit).
  6. The stakeholders you advocate blame to are NOT changing the rules (nor advocating for this change). The blame still should still be targeted at the ruling bodies.
  7. If the end result is negligible and it doesn’t solve the USGAs/R&As perceived problem at the elite level, then what is the point in doing it at all?!
  8. Cast thermoset urethane: chemical components are added to the mold separately where a chemical reaction crosslinks at a molecular level. Once cast the material cannot be recycled (as a result there tends to be more scrap which adds to the cost). The casting process takes longer to deliver a completed cover also adding cost, but the result tends to be a more durable, softer, thinner cover. Only 5 facilities on the planet that support this production process in a meaningful capacity (two owned by Acushnet, two owned by Taylormade, and Foremost who is independent though Taylormade also has a stake in that factory). As of today brands are pretty much limited to Titleist, Taylormade, Vice, Maxfli, and Wilson. Injection molded thermoplastic urethane (TPU): chemical components premixed and injection molded similar to other thermoplastics (ionomer/surlyn balls are produced the same way). Process is faster, cheaper, and material can be melted back down and reused once formed. Finished covers tend to be harder, thicker, and less durable than thermoset urethane, but still thinner and softer than ionomers. Big brands that use this production method are Bridgestone, Callaway, Srixon and then pretty much every other white label factory other than Foremost that produce balls for the majority of the smaller DTC brands (Acushnet also uses this method for the Titleist Tour Speed). TLDR: All other variables equal, thermoset urethane covers should be softer/thinner (tends to produce more spin) and tend to be more durable. With that said, other variables can be adjusted to account for the cover difference, granted it is difficult to make up for feel for those that a sensitive to cover hardness.
  9. The USGA rolled back the ball in the 1930s by lowering the max weight and increasing the minimum diameter but the R&A chose to stick with the status quo at the time. This was so unpopular that the USGA reversed course a few years later on the weight max but retained the larger diameter. The R&A finally aligned with the USGA on this item in the 1970s for their championships and globally starting in 1990 which began the only period in history with a global unified set of rules (until the USGA screwed that up with the groove rollback).
  10. All of those tour issue balls are subject to the same regulations as what is sold at retail, so no that is not bifurcation.
  11. Potentially for the same reason why Titleist doesn’t make Vokeys with grooves that exceed the post-2010 spec but still conform to the pre-2010 spec. Historically, non-conforming equipment has not sold well.
  12. When the USGA set the initial COR limit in 1998, it was set slightly above the Ping TISI which prompted the limit. Any drivers that were deemed illegal was after that initial limit was announced so those don’t count as a rollback. The main reason that some OEMs chose to exceed this limit was due to the R&As resistance to aligning with the USGAs initial limit for which the USGA floated the idea of adopting a higher .860 limit which never came to fruition. Basically there has never been a COR rollback, just a limit that hasn’t been reached which I think most would be ok with.
  13. Maybe it will be different this time given that it has been nearly a century since the last ball rollback, but historically non-conforming equipment has not sold well. If there was a large demand for non-conforming equipment, don’t you think there would be a lot more options that exceed the current ball limits? (I mean, can you even name a multilayer urethane ball that doesn’t conform to the current ODS?). The groove rule is another example that we can look to. The big OEMs complied by producing only to the new spec starting in 2010 even though the prior spec was still valid for most amateurs for at least 14 years. Now that the USGA blew by the final notice deadline without acknowledging, we are now at 18 years to never for full implementation of the groove rollback, yet the OEMs have shown no indication of changing course. IMHO, this will all be up to the PGA Tour/PGA of America. If they announce their intent on continuing to comply with the ROG, the OEMs will fall in line because this will be an opportunity for everyone except Acushnet. If they refuse and threaten to break off to their own set of rules, either the USGA/R&A maintain the status quo or push forward and risk the game descending into chaos.
  14. Impressive, but in general he has underperformed against those weaker LIV fields. Far from his 2020 form.
  15. I say “some” success considering his performance over the past couple of seasons and the fact that he has backed off some (not to mention few others following suit). He did have a top 5 at this year’s PGAC, but aside from that his major performances since winning the 2020 US Open have been disappointing.
  • Create New...