Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by storm319

  1. - Brian - Minneapolis, MN - 11 - Titleist 690.CB - T200
  2. I believe Tom Wishon and a group of other club designers/builders got together in an attempt back in the 90s but there was little financial incentive for the big OEMs to compromise what they were already doing. It is highly unlikely that any measurement industry standards will ever come to fruition.
  3. There was a thread over on GolfWRX where someone saw a large box with “golf putters” written on it at a specific Costco store late last year, but it has been quiet for the past couple of months. No doubt that they are coming given the putter sole in a KSig picture, it is just a matter of when.
  4. Even then, the TruFeel will be the closest.
  5. Keep in mind that the most of the smaller ball marketing companies outsource R&D and production to 3 asian factories. I am sure those factories will be able to adapt on a similar time frame as the big 5 (considering that these factories also produce some for 2 of the big 5).
  6. Not at all surprising given that the most likely rollback target would be the ball so as the market share leader they have the most to lose. Bridgestone who spoke out in favor a couple of years ago is number 4 in market share and apparently already had a head start given that they produced new limited flight balls for a USGA pilot a few years ago. They actually have a financial incentive for a market reset to occur.
  7. Exactly. I do not understand the complaints about scores in relation to par nor the obsession of protection of par. The only explanation I can think of is related to the sake of comparison to past eras which people taking this stance strongly deny.
  8. It sounds like you want this for the sake of making comparison to past era players easier (to be fair era comparison is a problem for all professional sports). The problem is when we let this carnal need for comparison shape the future of the game.
  9. AVX is multilayer urethane vs Supersoft 2-piece ionomer so not really similar.
  10. If the give you a new G410 as a replacement, sell it and buy another G400.
  11. The problem is that many people quickly abandon objective, logical thought for subjective emotion when quantifying a problem becomes difficult which is why this debate will never end even if the USGA makes regulatory changes in some capacity.
  12. I could be wrong but didn't you bring Jack into this conversation? And how does a minor criticism constitute spewing hate? Jack Nicklaus is a human with flaws just like any other human and his accomplishments (remember that his accomplishments are based on playing a game, not doing anything particularly important for society at large) does not put him above criticism for the rest of his life nor does it for any other human. The reality is the numbers he throws out are not based on any real data, it is based on his subjective perception. The USGA should be taking a methodical, data-centric approach to any proposed regulation changes rather than listening to the opinions of influencers whoever they may be.
  13. I agree with @NRJyzr. Basic physics points to club head speed having the greatest single impact on distance and data from that time period correlates the gains more to the large average increase in club head speed on Tour during that time period than the balls speed gains or spin reduction between the late wound balls (like the Titleist Professional) vs the early multilayer balls (like the Titleist ProV1).
  14. While the ball paradigm shift at the turn of the century has had an impact on distance, Jack greatly overestimates its significance and is a bit disingenuous when he fails to acknowledge any other factors (namely that the average Tour player is simply better than they were during his era). He also has two big conflicts of interest when speaking on this subject a) his playing legacy and b) his lucrative course design business. He also didn't really start complaining about the ball until his competitive playing career was coming to an end. Also keep in mind that he also complained when the Titleist Professional (first cast thermoset urethane wound ball) came out mainly due to the spin reduction vs balata and the shift to the solid core was just more of that. The other thing that people fail to realize was that the shift from wound to solid core pails in comparison to the shift from the gutty to wound that occurred a century ago. That was so drastic that the USGA actually took action in the form of a rollback on minimum diameter and maximum weight in the late 1920's only to reverse the weight regulation a few years later due to massive public outcry.
  15. Another hard reality would be the possibility that several major stake holders simply say "No" and the regulation of the game goes into disarray. Ultimately there is no action here that would not come with major implications. My argument all along has been that there is not enough quantifiable data to make a decision either way so regulations should remain as they are until irrefutable data can be collected (which may never happen).
  16. The course increases have been greatly exaggerated. According to the USGAs own data, the increase in distance (both total and 90th percentile averages) has been around 100 yards since the 1990s. The greatest increases occurred between the 1930s and the 1990s. Also, I’d you look at the majority of the classic high visibility major hosts, the increases since the 1930s have been less than 10% (Augusta and St Andrews are the exceptions that everyone keeps focusing on). The real resource waste for newer stadium courses is more due to the non-playing real estate required to host a PGA Tournament (grandstands, crowds, sponsor/hospitality tents, tv infrastructure, parking, etc). Reducing the playing length by even 10% would not have as big of an impact on resource/maintenance costs vs these non-playing areas.
  17. I agree that the local rule approach is dumb as few outside of the USGA, R&A, and ANGC would use it (the PGA Tour and PGA of America responded in opposition when this study was initially announced 2 years ago). Depending on the severity of any rollback the USGA always runs the risk of the PGA Tour simply saying no and creating their own set of rules which could severely threaten the USGA's authority. The big reason that the USGA has reverted to equipment regulation is because that is truly all that they have control over. Changes to course setups are not a valid solution for their perceived problem because they only control one elite event per year (three if you consider that the R&A and ANGC will follow suit). This is the reason why they handled the groove rollback the way that they did given that the simple solution was just to let the rough grow out. As for the concern around courses increasing in length, this has been greatly overstated in recent years based on a very small number of highly visible courses making changes. According to the USGA's own data, the most drastic course distance increases happened between the 1930s and the mid 1990s. Since the mid 1990s, the average course length ranges and 90th percentiles have only increased by 100 yards. The reality is that most courses have not changed much recently and few new courses are being built in the US anyways due to the decrease in value associated with golf courses attached with new housing developments following the great recession. Ultimately I have little sympathy for places like ANGC where money is no object, if they really cared about maintenance costs or water usage they wouldn't have payed millions for the additional land from the local country club to slightly expand their real estate boundary and slightly extend #13.
  18. I don't doubt that it is possible in some capacity, but I doubt that it would be possible to make a large enough reduction at the high end of the spectrum to appease those calling for a rollback to finally put this argument to rest and avoid a repeat of this argument in 20 years. With that said, I would much prefer something like this over official bifurcation or pseudo bifurcation via a local rule.
  19. Agreed. Every ball attribute that has a meaningful impact on distance has been limited for years (current minimum diameter/maximum mass limits have been limited since the 1930s, maximum initial ball velocity/overall distance standard since the 1970s, and dimple symmetry since the 1980s). Where the USGA really dropped the ball (and has yet to admit guilt and apologize) was the too late approach to limiting maximum driver size/dimensions when we saw a very fast increase in the late 90's/early 2000's. Limiting the maximum size and dimensions much earlier than they did would have eliminated MOI from even being discussed, but unfortunately they missed their chance (also regulations prior to mass adoption tend to be a non-event). Regardless, I recall seeing DJ and JD carry the green over on a short par 4 playing slightly over 300 with their respective 3 woods (both under 180cc/under COR limit) at Chambers Bay in 2015 so I doubt that 350cc drivers would have resulted in much of a difference with the way elite golfers approach the game.
  20. The TruFeel would be Titleist's closest competitor (lowest compression, 2-piece ionomer cover) to the Callaway Supersoft.
  21. They did that with the white vs yellow ZStar during the 2019 ball test.
  22. Not surprising that Ping is out of the G400 LST given that the G410 line replaced it 10 months ago (even though the G410 LST was released later) and the likelihood that they probably produced less of the LST vs the other two versions. It is better for Ping to cut production earlier rather than stock up in case of warranty replacement because A) less older inventory to potentially get stuck with and B) most people are fine with receiving a newer version as a replacement anyways. Worst case scenario for the OP is to sell the G410 LST if he doesn't like it and buy a used/NOS G400 LST (and likely have a little $ left over). Size difference between the two LST versions is negligible: 400 LST = 445cc vs 410 LST = 450cc
  23. storm319

    ClearGolf Shaft

    I think you may be referring to Pearl golf and their Pure Pro X which is no longer on their site since the cut pic showed up on social media comparing it to the KSig (aka Nassau Quattro). These Clear balls show 318 and 336 dimple patterns which would point to the Foremost factory in Taiwan. These are likely the same as what Vice sells.
  24. With ionomer covered balls, anyone would be hard pressed to perceive any difference between colors. Cast thermoset urethane balls on the other hand are a different story as the actual urethane formulation is different.
  25. It won’t be in Rickie’s bag unless it shows up on the USGA conforming list next Monday.
  • Create New...