Would you play a non-conforming (illegal) driver?

[DrvFrShow]

Plus, it's a way more exciting game if (when) a player can hit 250-300 yards, if the average person can hit a lot farther and straighter I think more people will do it. Rounds will take a lot less time too.

Your sarcasm is showing.

[Lihu]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lihu

Plus, it's a way more exciting game if (when) a player can hit 250-300 yards, if the average person can hit a lot farther and straighter I think more people will do it. Rounds will take a lot less time too.

Your sarcasm is showing.

I did mention "straighter" as well.

[vangator]

There's a local golf shop that sells a 750 cc driver. Is that conforming? :-)

[Patch]

Yeah I have, and would again just for the heck of it. Why not. Of course I would not pay much attention to my score. There's a time in golf for just (fun) entertainment, and  other times to be serious.

Years ago we use to mess around with drivers by shaving the face down for added yardage. Some of the pros were even doing it.

[turtleback]

Seems like using grease is illegal, but a low spin head which appears to accomplish that goal is legal? What is illegal now might be legal in the future of golf?

Adding any foreign substance to the club face to change the playing characteristics is illegal.  I doubt there are any implications for future equipment rule changes in that.

I'm sure the reason why it's non-conforming will be well advertised.

You would think so, wouldn't you.  Yet there is company out there peddling non-conforming balls and it is not as clear as we might think, considering those very balls have been recommended on this very site by users who did not realize they are illegal.  I am talking, of course about Polara golf balls.  Polara also sells a non-conforming driver but at least their website is up front about it being illegal.  They are much less up front about the balls.  You can find the info that they are not USGA legal on their site, but you have to dig a bit.

It is also a little strange that when I started typing polara golf balls into google an alternate search suggestion came up polara golf balls usga approved but when I clicked on it there was nothing to that effect.  I do not know enough about how google comes up with the alternative search suggestions but it seemed strange that google would generate a search phrase that doesn't actually match anything on point.  That coincidentally might make a casual viewer think the balls were legal?  Have I read too many conspiracy books?

[teamroper60]

I voted no.   First of all, even though I don't really play tournaments other than the occasional charity scramble, I want my handicap to be legit and it can't be if I used illegal clubs.   Secondly, I view golf as me playing against the course and my personal bests, so using an illegal driver would be cheating myself.

[Lihu]

I'm probably the last person to endorse more forgiveness as I use traditional bladed irons which are not even muscle backs and woods and hybrids with heavy steel shafts and very little forgiveness. However, if I actually cared about my scores and was not able to hit as athletically, I can see a non conforming driver/irons/balls as being a way to get the desired distances to score lower. Most people who consider themselves as purists aren't really looking at the history of golf from the start. I'll admit that I'm a newcomer to golf, but I've read lots of books about golf including a history of the golf club. Most equipment started off as a new and radical departure from the traditional equipment, and in some cases became the norm overnight because it helped the game. To me, golf is an evolving sport, and I don't understand why an arbitrary limit like 0.83 was chosen as opposed to limited by the laws of physics?

[14ledo81]

For me it has nothing to do with handicaps, cheating, scores, etc..

For me, it is simply fun to hit the ball far.

My drives carry 210, 220 on a good day.  If I could play a driver that boosted my carry distance up to 275, I would play it in a heartbeat.  It would be even more fun (for me) if I had irons that raised my carry distances as well.

At my home course I have looked at how the course lays out from the tips.  Some of the holes now have doglegs.  It appears like it would be much more enjoyable to be able to play from there and still be able to get the ball out there.

Again, I would realize I was "cheating".  Doesn't bother me.  90% of the time I play by myself anyway.

[dsc123]

No need.  Taylormade puts out a conforming driver every year and promises to give you an extra 15-20 yards.

Seriously though,  I wouldn't.  But I think it would be good for golf if they started making them for the less serious golfer.  Also, @Golfingdad makes a good point.  Maybe the USGA would have to stamp conforming clubs and publish a list similar to the ASA in softball.

[Fourputt]

No need.  Taylormade puts out a conforming driver every year and promises to give you an extra 15-20 yards.

Seriously though,  I wouldn't.  But I think it would be good for golf if they started making them for the less serious golfer.  Also, @Golfingdad makes a good point.  Maybe the USGA would have to stamp conforming clubs and publish a list similar to the ASA in softball.

They already publish that LIST for both driver heads and balls.

[dsc123]

They already publish that LIST for both driver heads and balls.

I didn't know that, thanks.  They just need to make one of these, now:

[phan52]

Why in the world would I want to do that?

[No Mulligans]

These rules seem a bit arbitrary.  Technology has been improving distance and accuracy for a long time.  No one seems to have a problem with that.  Pretty rare to see someone playing with persimmon woods or a 1970s style golf ball these days.

[billchao]

To me, golf is an evolving sport, and I don't understand why an arbitrary limit like 0.83 was chosen as opposed to limited by the laws of physics?

It's arbitrary, but so are all the other limitations they set on clubs. Why limit shaft length or head size? Why limit design and materials? They define the limits of the equipment used to play the game, much like the way the rules of golf define what golf is. So yes, it's arbitrary to limit driver heads at 460cc and 48" shafts and 0.83 COR, but they have to draw the line somewhere.

[Lihu]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lihu

To me, golf is an evolving sport, and I don't understand why an arbitrary limit like 0.83 was chosen as opposed to limited by the laws of physics?

It's arbitrary, but so are all the other limitations they set on clubs. Why limit shaft length or head size? Why limit design and materials?

They define the limits of the equipment used to play the game, much like the way the rules of golf define what golf is. So yes, it's arbitrary to limit driver heads at 460cc and 48" shafts and 0.83 COR, but they have to draw the line somewhere.

If you can swing a 55" driver with a 0.95 COR and a 550cc head with aerodynamic "path guiding fins" on it, then why not?

I think equipment limits should be based upon what we can reasonably use and build. This will enhance innovation.

[Big C]

I would not use a non-conforming club in any of my normal rounds (tournament or otherwise), but I would be tempted to buy one just to use at the occasional scramble event. I am usually one of the longer hitters in my scramble groups and I must say that adding 15-20 yards would be mighty appealing.

[Fourputt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by billchao

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lihu

To me, golf is an evolving sport, and I don't understand why an arbitrary limit like 0.83 was chosen as opposed to limited by the laws of physics?

It's arbitrary, but so are all the other limitations they set on clubs. Why limit shaft length or head size? Why limit design and materials?

They define the limits of the equipment used to play the game, much like the way the rules of golf define what golf is. So yes, it's arbitrary to limit driver heads at 460cc and 48" shafts and 0.83 COR, but they have to draw the line somewhere.

If you can swing a 55" driver with a 0.95 COR and a 550cc head with aerodynamic "path guiding fins" on it, then why not?

I think equipment limits should be based upon what we can reasonably use and build. This will enhance innovation.

Any game or sport sets specifications on the equipment that can be used (tennis, basketball, baseball, football - think deflate-gate, maybe the ultimate in equipment restrictions is in auto racing), so why do you object to golf following suit?  There was a lot of controversy back in the '20s and early '30s when steel shafts were first introduced.  Ultimately they were accepted, but that led to players carrying 30 or more clubs because the clubs could be made cheaper and matched better.  This forced the ruling bodies to come up with an arbitrary maximum number of clubs allowed.  It was done to preserve the game in a recognizable form, so that there would still be dependence on the player's ability to make a stroke, not just his ability to select a club.

The same thinking goes into all such decisions to this day - limits are set to preserve the game's identity and integrity.  This is what drove the groove rule, the anchoring ban, the club length and COR limits, and the ball limits.

You admit to being new to the game, so I'll cut you some slack, but if you were to make even a superficial study of the history of golf and the rules of the game, you wouldn't even have to ask this question.

[Golfingdad]

Any game or sport sets specifications on the equipment that can be used (tennis, basketball, baseball, football - think deflate-gate, maybe the ultimate in equipment restrictions is in auto racing), so why do you object to golf following suit?  There was a lot of controversy back in the '20s and early '30s when steel shafts were first introduced.  Ultimately they were accepted, but that led to players carrying 30 or more clubs because the clubs could be made cheaper and matched better.  This forced the ruling bodies to come up with an arbitrary maximum number of clubs allowed.  It was done to preserve the game in a recognizable form, so that there would still be dependence on the player's ability to make a stroke, not just his ability to select a club.

The same thinking goes into all such decisions to this day - limits are set to preserve the game's identity and integrity.  This is what drove the groove rule, the anchoring ban, the club length and COR limits, and the ball limits.

You admit to being new to the game, so I'll cut you some slack, but if you were to make even a superficial study of the history of golf and the rules of the game, you wouldn't even have to ask this question.

Exactly.  Every single rule in every single sport is arbitrary.  They're all made up games.