Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Mike Boatright

Super-Lightweight Drivers That Don't Hit the Ball as Far

Note: This thread is 1633 days old. We appreciate that you found this thread instead of starting a new one, but if you plan to post here please make sure it's still relevant. If not, please start a new topic. Thank you!

102 posts / 13420 viewsLast Reply

Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, Mike Boatright said:

This is very un scientific, but will show to some extent the difference between swinging a standard 200 gram driver head vs a 155 gram version of the same shaft length. Iv'e seen these results over and over again and would assume the same results with different users over hundreds of trials.

Please forgive the poor quality I used windows movie maker and a cheap 12 megapixel camera.

 

specs: Cobra s speed 200 gram head 70 gram s fujikura shaft 44.5 inches

Prototype Callaway 5.5 ounces 155.922 grams head with a 60 gram shaft 44.5 inches

Callaway razr x reg flex motore 50 gram shaft +1/2 inch or 45 inches

The lighter club head is moving faster, but the ball is likely not going to be moving faster. Off center hits are probably going to suffer a lot more too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

3 hours ago, Jeremie Boop said:

The phrase "point of diminishing returns" seems to fit here.... Also, I'm pretty sure that the reason club heads are typically all in the 180-200 gram weight range is not by accident but by design due to years of research showing that is the optimal weight giving maximum results within the confines of the rules of golf... But hey, what do I know, I'm just a bad golfer who likes to to read golf forums and stuff.

Hey, I got to visit the :ping: headquarters and talk with the :ping: design engineers.  Those fellas don't know what they're doing, they're just shooting in the dark.  I think they need to hire @Mike Boatright and come out with something that actually works!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

36 minutes ago, DaveP043 said:

Hey, I got to visit the :ping: headquarters and talk with the :ping: design engineers.  Those fellas don't know what they're doing, they're just shooting in the dark.  I think they need to hire @Mike Boatright and come out with something that actually works!

Agree, I also don't like that they use Creo (which I am being forced to use at this point :-P), and their combined 200 plus years of design experience is nothing compared to someone hacking off bits of old drivers in his garage. . .

With all due respect, @Mike Boatright, I think you are correct that driver heads will get lighter in the future, but it will likely be for a totally different reason than just increasing swing speed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

That you think that qualifies as "science" is laughable, @Mike Boatright.

I no longer care about arguing the specifics. That drum's been beat and you'll just continue to ignore it. You've become a side show; something to laugh at in passing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

6 hours ago, Mike Boatright said:

My test concluded that I could swing the 44.5 inch 60 gram shaft 155 gram driver head 119 mph with ease because of it's head weight vs my 200 gram standard club 110 with measurable effort.

This is pretty consistent with that table of results from the 1960s, where cutting the weight in half (227g to 113g) added 13 mph swing speed, but lost 13 yards in distance. So yes, you will gain speed, but the ball won't go as far.

9 hours ago, Mike Boatright said:

How can mass that far and wide away from the ball have an effect on smash factor ask your self this?

Because they are connected. How far the weight is back or forward, or side to side, has minimal impact on initial ball velocity. The distribution of the weight is much more important for things like balance, launch trajectory, and spin. And in any case, manufacturers have already worked hard to optimize this distribution.

6 hours ago, Mike Boatright said:

Forgiveness comes from face size not so much from a large exterior body.

A large face without a large enough body would not be aerodynamic. The larger the face area, the more resistance there is moving it through the air.

7 hours ago, Mike Boatright said:

The point of this thread is the average bloke swings it 90 mph and hit's it 230 yards wouldn't be nice to krank it out there 270 legally?

But lighter weight drivers, in the range of 185g-190g head weight, and around 260-280g total weight, are already out there helping average blokes krank it out to 170-200 yards. But players who can already hit it farther than that tend to not get their optimal distance at such weights, in real world testing. See, for example:

http://www.mygolfspy.com/cleveland-cg-black-driver-review/
 

Quote

 

When we take a deeper dive into our data we find a bit clearer of a dividing line. For the subset of testers who swing above 85 MPH (the range was roughly 86-91 MPH), the Wilson D200 put up better numbers (nearly across the board), while for our testers under 85 MPH (roughly 78-84 MPH), the results were better – again, nearly across the board – with the Cleveland CG Black.

While the results of our larger tests suggest the D200, and other fast drivers like AeroBurner and V-Series should have wider reach within the market, for lower swing speed players, particularly those below 85 MPH, Cleveland’s CG Black is an intriguing option.

If you swing more than 90 MPH, the Cleveland CG Black probably isn't for you. If you're happily playing a TaylorMade SLDR or something else of that ilk, it's probably not for you either, and that's okay...at least it should be.

 

Note that their real world golfers achieving about 116 mph ball speeds (so I'll assume about 80 mph swing speed) only averaged around 163 yards carry in that test. If they had optimized launch angles and spin, those golfers could probably carry 190.

Bottom line, with your swing speed you are better off:

1> consider a little shorter shaft, rather than a lighter head, if you want the club to feel lighter

2> work on learning to optimize contact, launch angle, and spin

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I decided to model my club head speed based on the club weight and length. 

I used Excel to come up with an equation for how I react to the change in club weight and length. My swing weight for my clubs is pretty consistent at D2-D4. That is pretty much a non-factor for me. 

Here is a graph of a projected ball speed due to the change in club head weight only. 

Club Head Weight.JPG

This is why 200 grams is near the top end of the optimal club head weight range, from 180 to 205. Notice that all the drivers today are made with a club head weight in that range. 

Before or after that range the ball speed drops off due to club head weight either causing me to swing slower or not producing a high enough smash factor. 

This makes a lot of sense. At the higher end the overall weight causes the club to slow down faster than the increasing smash factor can make up for. At the low end the club head speed increase due to the lighter club but it can not keep up with the smash factor decreasing due to the change in club head weight. 

Even if I cut my club head weight down so it only weights 155 grams. At that weight I would swing around 121 mph. 

YET!!! , I would only produce 168.5 mph ball speed. Which is 1.5 mph LOWER than my average ball speed on an optimal strike. 

If I wanted to really optimize my ball speed I would go with a 190-195 club head. So about 8 grams less would give me about a 1/10th of a degree more ball speed. :-D

If I compared the optimal overall distance between my 200 gram club head and the 155 gram projected value, 

155 gram driver head would get me 296 yards carry
200 gram driver head would get me 299 yards carry 

I will say this. The results in the distance are marginal. Yet this is where the pro's of modern golf club technology make the 200 gram driver the better club. 

With a lower weight you would have a smaller club. A smaller club means a reduced sweet spot and lower MOI. My test was based on optimal strike. Golfers do not hit the sweet spot 100% of the time. I could easily claim that the ball speed on average, for the smaller club, would be even less due to off-centered hits causing a loss in ball speed. 

Will a lighter club create a faster swing speed, yes. Does that compensate for the loss in ball speed due to the decreased head weight, NO!

Also note, 3-woods, which have a smaller profile are actually made to be heavier than a driver. Golf companies know you can't have a super light club head because of the loss in the kinetic energy transfer at impact. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

2 hours ago, saevel25 said:

I decided to model my club head speed based on the club weight and length. 

I used Excel to come up with an equation for how I react to the change in club weight and length. My swing weight for my clubs is pretty consistent at D2-D4. That is pretty much a non-factor for me. 

Here is a graph of a projected ball speed due to the change in club head weight only. 

Club Head Weight.JPG

This is why 200 grams is near the top end of the optimal club head weight range, from 180 to 205. Notice that all the drivers today are made with a club head weight in that range. 

Before or after that range the ball speed drops off due to club head weight either causing me to swing slower or not producing a high enough smash factor. 

This makes a lot of sense. At the higher end the overall weight causes the club to slow down faster than the increasing smash factor can make up for. At the low end the club head speed increase due to the lighter club but it can not keep up with the smash factor decreasing due to the change in club head weight. 

Even if I cut my club head weight down so it only weights 155 grams. At that weight I would swing around 121 mph. 

YET!!! , I would only produce 168.5 mph ball speed. Which is 1.5 mph LOWER than my average ball speed on an optimal strike. 

If I wanted to really optimize my ball speed I would go with a 190-195 club head. So about 8 grams less would give me about a 1/10th of a degree more ball speed. :-D

If I compared the optimal overall distance between my 200 gram club head and the 155 gram projected value, 

155 gram driver head would get me 296 yards carry
200 gram driver head would get me 299 yards carry 

I will say this. The results in the distance are marginal. Yet this is where the pro's of modern golf club technology make the 200 gram driver the better club. 

With a lower weight you would have a smaller club. A smaller club means a reduced sweet spot and lower MOI. My test was based on optimal strike. Golfers do not hit the sweet spot 100% of the time. I could easily claim that the ball speed on average, for the smaller club, would be even less due to off-centered hits causing a loss in ball speed. 

Will a lighter club create a faster swing speed, yes. Does that compensate for the loss in ball speed due to the decreased head weight, NO!

Also note, 3-woods, which have a smaller profile are actually made to be heavier than a driver. Golf companies know you can't have a super light club head because of the loss in the kinetic energy transfer at impact. 

 

 

That's very interesting I get all of I'm not saying it's wrong. I made the video because a few people on here said you wouldn't pick up clubhead speed with a lighter head. It feels so good to make a very easy swing and hit 115 mph without trying very hard. My question is it simply weight and that's a fact no matter where the weight is positioned? Will the results always have to be in the 190 to 212 grams range? I for one figure the sweet spot on a driver is the size of a golf ball and the rest of the face is a miss.

I just weighed this broken ping tsi tec head I have at 212 grams yet it's very small in cc 330 grams. I have hit some of the best drives of my life with this clubs and still figure the sweet spot to be the size of a golf ball maybe a little less even though it's small and always felt a little heavy. So what if they make a 330 cc driver similar to this one in design at 175 grams and less cg placement and more centered mass could that still produce optimal ball speed?. I figure I could probably swing a 175 gram head pretty fast in fact I will add some weight to the callaway to see the results. 

Ping-TISI-Driver-10-Regular-Right-Handed-Graphite-Golf-_1.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, b101 said:

Ok, thing is, golf is about getting the ball in the hole, not what number you can produce on a swing speed monitor. Let's try this a different way. How many fairways do you hit and how far do you hit it on average, including the mishits? 

Yet from every swing of yours I've seen, you aren't in balance and can't hold your follow-through. Everything is about hitting it as hard as you possibly can and that can't lead to good results.

Happy to say otherwise if you are actually hitting a load of fairways, but based on pretty much every post you've made, more speed is the last thing you need - this is a compliment, you can clearly hit it a long way. However, it seems to be all you are interested in, which just doesn't add up if you're trying to reduce your scores. If you're competing against mates for who's got the biggest balls for bashing driver as far as you can with no regard for direction, then carry on.

I'm in it more for the science and fun. I just cut down one of my drivers to 43.5 inches and hit it 250 carry when i hit it well. I'm not a super long hitter and when I playing well find a decent amount of fairways.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Mike Boatright said:

My question is it simply weight and that's a fact no matter where the weight is positioned? Will the results always have to be in the 190 to 212 grams range? I for one figure the sweet spot on a driver is the size of a golf ball and the rest of the face is a miss.

 

Yes. If the club head is lighter then you lose kinetic energy, lose in smash factor. 

CG location just helps determine launch angel, MOI and spin rates. 

Sweet spot extends a good ways from the center of the club face. 

1 hour ago, Mike Boatright said:

So what if they make a 330 cc driver similar to this one in design at 175 grams and less cg placement and more centered mass could that still produce optimal ball speed?. I figure I could probably swing a 175 gram head pretty fast in fact I will add some weight to the callaway to see the results. 

CG is where the center of mass is located. The mass is centered horizontally on drivers already. This had been said before. 

No you will not get optimal ball speeds because the mass lowers the smash factor as said a lot already. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

1 hour ago, saevel25 said:
2 hours ago, Mike Boatright said:

My question is it simply weight and that's a fact no matter where the weight is positioned? Will the results always have to be in the 190 to 212 grams range? I for one figure the sweet spot on a driver is the size of a golf ball and the rest of the face is a miss.

 

Yes. If the club head is lighter then you lose kinetic energy, lose in smash factor. 

CG location just helps determine launch angel, MOI and spin rates. 

Sweet spot extends a good ways from the center of the club face. 

2 hours ago, Mike Boatright said:

So what if they make a 330 cc driver similar to this one in design at 175 grams and less cg placement and more centered mass could that still produce optimal ball speed?. I figure I could probably swing a 175 gram head pretty fast in fact I will add some weight to the callaway to see the results. 

CG is where the center of mass is located. The mass is centered horizontally on drivers already. This had been said before. 

No you will not get optimal ball speeds because the mass lowers the smash factor as said a lot already. 

I know it's so weird to me though were talking grams not 5 pounds vs 20 pounds dropping from a 2 story building and figuring which one will do more damage. I will say that a 2 pound ball dropped into a cement object would probably deliver more direct energy vs a 5 pound metal can,at least that's what I can see in my mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Mike Boatright said:

I know it's so weird to me though were talking grams not 5 pounds vs 20 pounds dropping from a 2 story building and figuring which one will do more damage.

I will say that a 2 pound ball dropped into a cement object would probably deliver more direct energy vs a 5 pound metal can,at least that's what I can see in my mind.

Tough to say. If the objects are analyzed in the world of free falling, just taking into account gravity they would hit the ground with the same velocity. 

vf = √(2gh)

I am not entirely sure how much air resistance there would be on a 2 story drop with a sphere versus a metal can. In the end a driver is not  a metal can. Drivers are very aerodynamic. Callaway worked with Boeing, you know the company that designs air planes, to design their new driver. A metal can is not a good comparison. 

I would say the velocities would be very similar and in that regard the 5 lb can would do more damage. When push comes to shove I rather be hit with a lighter object falling versus a heavier one. Who would you rather try to catch from hitting the ground, a 12 year old or a 300 lb middle age? 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

4 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

Tough to say. If the objects are analyzed in the world of free falling, just taking into account gravity they would hit the ground with the same velocity. 

vf = √(2gh)

I am not entirely sure how much air resistance there would be on a 2 story drop with a sphere versus a metal can. In the end a driver is not  a metal can. Drivers are very aerodynamic. Callaway worked with Boeing, you know the company that designs air planes, to design their new driver. A metal can is not a good comparison. 

I would say the velocities would be very similar and in that regard the 5 lb can would do more damage. When push comes to shove I rather be hit with a lighter object falling versus a heavier one. Who would you rather try to catch from hitting the ground, a 12 year old or a 300 lb middle age? 

 

The speed would be the same but the direct force would not. The 2 pound ball could kill where the 5 pound homer bucket from the home depot would hurt but bounce off your head. Yes I said this earlier callaways drivers is bad ass they have managed to make the 460 cc driver move as fast as possible within it's structure and weight. I actually have nothing against a 200 gram head my goal here is to find a way to swing something 120 mph without a lot of effort. From testing weight is the most determent factor of clubhead speed not so much aerodynamics. Given the same shaft length and weight with the same grip the lighter head goes much,much faster regardless of how aerodynamic that larger object may be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would love to see some robotic testing hitting a golf ball with a heavier more massive object expanded like this titanium plate vs the more compacted slightly lighter version being the end of this hammer.

 

Just like blades in steel irons direct hits seem to provide more energy to the ball then it's cavity back cousins because of perimeter weighting offer more moi I guess? It adds forgiveness on all around hits on the total face diameter.

B00005RUQ5.01._SCLZZZZZZZ_.jpg

61TCRtwk0YL._SY355_.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Mike Boatright said:

my goal here is to find a way to swing something 120 mph without a lot of effort.

120 mph is useless if the mass is their to back it up. Stop being fixated on 120. Who cares? If I had a choice of swinging 115 versus 120 knowing 115 gets me longer distance than I'll swing 115. 

It's been show and said multiple times now. It's not possible to swing fast enough to adequately make up for the loss in mass in the clubhead. It doesn't matter if the driver is 460 cc or 330 cc. Mass is mass. 

14 minutes ago, Mike Boatright said:

From testing weight is the most determent factor of clubhead speed not so much aerodynamics. 

Driver's have been aerodynamic for going on 15+ years now. Only recently have they really tried to improve upon it. Even then, like with Ping, you are only going to see a slight increase in clubhead speed. From actual people testing they saw about a 1-3% increase in clubhead speed. Drivers are very aerodynamic with the constraints that are put on them to maximize MOI and ball speed. 

So the primary factor in clubhead speed is overall weight and length of the club.

14 minutes ago, Mike Boatright said:

Given the same shaft length and weight with the same grip the lighter head goes much,much faster regardless of how aerodynamic that larger object may be.

It's not much much faster. My look at my own swing and how the swing speed changes through out all my clubs has shown that you are gaining 0.11 mph clubhead speed per gram taken off the driver. Taking off 45 grams, turning a 200 gram driver into a 155 gram driver only increases your clubhead speed by 5 mph. 

That's really that significant. You are losing 22.5% of the mass to gain 4.3% clubhead speed. 

There is probably a max limit to the club head speed anyways because of just how physical fast can you actually swing your arm. There is an actual human element to this.

7 minutes ago, Mike Boatright said:

Just like blades in steel irons direct hits seem to provide more energy to the ball then it's cavity back cousins because of perimeter weighting offer more moi I guess? It adds forgiveness on all around hits on the total face diameter.

If you have a muscle back iron versus a cavity back iron. If they weight the same they impart the same energy to the ball. The ball doesn't care how the mass is distributed because when they design clubs the center of gravity (center of mass) is going to be located behind the ball at it's optimal spot. 

This has been said again and again. it doesn't matter how the mass is distributed. All that matters is the mass and the velocity. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

6 hours ago, Mike Boatright said:

I made the video because a few people on here said you wouldn't pick up clubhead speed with a lighter head.

Pretty sure nobody's said that. Please find and quote where someone said this recently.

3 hours ago, saevel25 said:

120 mph is useless if the mass is their to back it up. Stop being fixated on 120. Who cares? If I had a choice of swinging 115 versus 120 knowing 115 gets me longer distance than I'll swing 115. 

It's been show and said multiple times now. It's not possible to swing fast enough to adequately make up for the loss in mass in the clubhead. It doesn't matter if the driver is 460 cc or 330 cc. Mass is mass. 

Matt just give up. He doesn't get it. He talks about how a 5 pound metal can would not cause any harm but a two pound ball will kill.

Hey Mike, let's say I fill a small can with lead and you have a large styrofoam ball that weighs two pounds… You'll willingly stand beneath the lead filled metal can? I'll stand beneath the styrofoam ball.

You don't seem to realize how stupid many of the things you say are. You're not only not a scientist, you don't even seem to understand the basic principles.

Nobody has agreed with you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

16 minutes ago, iacas said:

Matt just give up. He doesn't get it. He talks about how a 5 pound metal can would not cause any harm but a two pound ball will kill.

Yea I know :whistle:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

On April 12, 2016 at 8:29 AM, saevel25 said:

You'd never see that type of increase in speed. Golf companies have been testing aerodynamics of drivers for years now. 

Similar comments and such. I said a 5 pound plastic bucket vs a solid 2 pound lead ball yes.  I get it it just fine guy i'm just trying to think outside the lines and harness new concepts and new ideas. You guys are stuck in the idea that tech is as good as it's ever going to get syndrome.

I remember 15 years ago some Executive from x box quoted that graphics in the original HALO were as real as it's ever going to get bar none!

It's that kind of thinking that get's you nowhere and is kinda arrogant.

Quote

It doesn't matter if the driver is 460 cc or 330 cc. Mass is mass. 

Is it though how much of that extra 30 or 50 grams is actually being utilized to transfer energy into the ball vs moi and stability?

This brings me back to the description I was using stating a 2 pound lead ball dropped on to concrete might apply more force at the same speed from 2 stories up then a 5 pound can or plastic bucket. I'm just assuming this from logic. Figuring this possibility a reduction in say 35 grams and a head design that utilizes 100% of that mass into impact could perform just as good as the heavier 200 gram version. Of course with the same prototype design a 200 gram head would go even farther it would just be harder to achieve clubhead speed.

I know mass is mass it doesn't matter... Common sense tells me otherwise with the correct design.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Mike Boatright said:

I said a 5 pound plastic bucket vs a solid 2 pound lead ball yes.

No you didn't.

5 hours ago, Mike Boatright said:

I know it's so weird to me though were talking grams not 5 pounds vs 20 pounds dropping from a 2 story building and figuring which one will do more damage. I will say that a 2 pound ball dropped into a cement object would probably deliver more direct energy vs a 5 pound metal can,at least that's what I can see in my mind.

I wouldn't trust what you can see in your mind over basic physics.

You can't even remember what's written earlier on the page.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Note: This thread is 1633 days old. We appreciate that you found this thread instead of starting a new one, but if you plan to post here please make sure it's still relevant. If not, please start a new topic. Thank you!

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  



  • Want to join this community?

    We'd love to have you!

    Sign Up
  • Support TST Affiliates

    SuperSpeed
    TourStriker PlaneMate
    Golfer's Journal
    Whoop
    FlightScope Mevo
    Use the code "iacas" for 10% off Mevo
  • Posts

    • We don't do breakfast balls. But the other two @woodzie264 described are pretty much winter rules. I used to play a lot of tournament golf, so im just conditioned to play the game under those circumstances, even when im playing a game with a group where they are different rules agreed to. But the rule I and my regular group let slide most often is re-teeing or replaying after a lost ball or OB. We just agree on a general place to play the next from with whatever penalty the shot usually is. Speeds things along and doesn't really effect the outcome of our money games too much. 
    • When I’m playing a non-handicapped round, I don’t follow a lot of rules. I’ll toss em around if I don’t like a lie or line, pick up once on green and/or within like 6ft, and hit several mulligans. Honestly when not keeping a handicap, play in any way that makes you happy, so long as it doesn’t effect pace of play. 
    • Rule 3 - The Competition Notes as follows. These are notes, not a recap or a summary or anything like that. I didn't do a great job of just writing the NOTES for this rule, instead I just kinda summarized it, particularly the match play part. I'll do better for rule 4. 3.1 - Central Elements of Every Competition Match play, stroke play, or other forms of stroke play determine some rules outcomes Match play is against the opponent, without as much care for "the field" Also have to know if you're playing against an individual or partners Finally, gross or net? 3.2 - Match Play Three ways to win a hole fewer strokes than opponent opponent concedes opponent incurs general penalty You can tie, too: same number of strokes someone makes a stroke on the hole and the players treat it as tied (kinda like a mutual concession) Three ways to win a match: More holes up than remain opponent concedes opponent is DQed Extending a tied match: sudden death, continuation of the same round (so no switching equipment, etc.) holes played in same order unless Committee determines a different one Result is final when something is done as set by the Committee, such as final score posted on a scoreboard, etc. Players may concede the next stroke, hole, or match. Concessions made while ball in motion apply to the next stroke unless it goes in the hole. If knocked away while in motion it has to be obvious that the ball doesn't have a chance of going in. (Spieth in the Ryder Cup.) Concede a hole at any point before the hole is completed (even before it's played), 6.5. Concede a match at any point before it's completed/decided. Concessions are verbal or by an action If a player lifts his ball due to a reasonable misunderstanding that something was conceded, he can replace with no penalty (14.2) Handicaps in match play… DQed if player says handicap too high and doesn't correct before next stroke. If too low, plays off the lower handicap. Given by hole, lower net score wins. If tied match extended, same holes get the same strokes as in regular round. If players mistakenly apply handicap to a hole, result stands unless it's corrected in time. Responsibilities: Player can ask the other how many strokes they've taken at any time, other guy must respond with correct number. Failure to reply is treated as giving the wrong number of strokes. Wrong number is general penalty unless he corrects before asking player makes another stroke, or if after a hole, before anyone makes a stroke on the next hole or before the match is final (exception if the right score doesn't affect the outcome of the hole). Must tell an opponent about the penalty as soon as reasonably possible, even if the player is unaware of the penalty (because players are supposed to recognize when they've breached a rule). Otherwise, general penalty. Exception: no penalty when opponent knew of player's penalty (such as when seeing him take penalty relief). Know the match score. If players mistakenly agree on wrong match score they can correct it before a player makes a stroke to begin another hole or before the match is final if it's the last hole. If not corrected, it becomes the final score. Exception: when player requests a ruling. Protect your own rights and interests. You're not protecting the field here. Players may act on or ignore breaches by opponent. Cannot deliberately agree to ignore breaches, DQ if so. Players can ask for rulings under 20.1b. 3.3 - Stroke Play Winner finishes in the fewest total strokes, net if handicap. Player's score kept on a scorecard by the marker. Marker(s) certify hole scores with player, sign. Player certifies, signs, and returns scorecard. Breach anything here, DQ. Exception: no penalty when marker fails, such as marker leaving with player's card). Wrong hole score: higher stands, lower is DQ. Exception: just pretend you're unaware of a penalty. Stupid. Then the strokes are just included. Player responsible for his handicap being listed on the scorecard. Too high or not shown and affects # of strokes given, DQ. Too low, plays to it. Player not responsible for addition or applying handicap. Player must hole out each hole. If not corrected in time, DQ. Rules 21.1, 21.2, and 21.3 for other forms of stroke play.
    • 2021 Golf Goal - Golf With John  Break 90 consistently. I should hit 89 or better 7 out of 10 rounds. I know I can hit 90's because I've tried better ball (2 balls), and I was able to only hit 4 over in 9 holes.  Better course management. Thinking before my shots. Make good contact Practice range. I've gone out almost every weekday morning in Oct, putting 30 minutes and range a hour. Chipping and putting practice. Trying to get make my body to automatically do what I've learned in my lessons.  New shot shapes (how to hit a fade, draw, low, high). I realized I have no idea how to hits these. If it happens on the course, it's accidental as my only goal was to hit it straight. Play Club tournaments I've played 1 this year and it was a great time. Got to putt every hole!  Oct 2021 goal is to hit 80 from white tees Once i'm comfortable breaking into single digits, I'll move to the back tees. I was able to hit 87 1 time this past year and it was an amazing feeling. Ingrain in my brain, there are bad shots and it sucks but it's okay. We'll get through it.
    • Obviously you/we can't submit those/these rounds for HCP purposes, but when playing with buddies who use golf as an excuse to get together and drink, we allow: the customary Breakfast Ball if first drive is out of play rolling the ball in the fairway (if they're in the fairway, they deserve a good lie) Leaf rule (free drop) if all parties agree the ball was assumed to be in the fairway or just off & most assuredly not out of bounds or a bad enough shot that would've have resulted it being lost in the summer or other times when ground is clear
  • Today's Birthdays

    1. Darkfrog
      Darkfrog
      (43 years old)
    2. Jrock817
      Jrock817
      (40 years old)
    3. Leonclum
      Leonclum
      (48 years old)

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Welcome to TST! Signing up is free, and you'll see fewer ads and can talk with fellow golf enthusiasts! By using TST, you agree to our Terms of Use, our Privacy Policy, and our Guidelines.

The popup will be closed in 10 seconds...