Club innovation and sticking with the same set

[Xunzi]

Two related questions:

1) Do you agree with the COR regulation / regulation in general that restricts manufacturers from producing clubs that create ever longer distances?

Personally, while I dislike bans on innovation in principle, I'm somewhat favorable to this. There's a limit to how far you can hit the ball for when you're no longer playing golf. Perhaps, introduce a "no tech limits" variety of golf, with courses adjusted to clubs driving 1000 yards, but otherwise happy with current regulation - interested to hear arguments to the contrary.

2) Given that the incremental improvement in clubs from year to year is so small (if there is one), does it make sense to change golf clubs?

It seems to me that most new clubs for the last few years are only improvements in marketing spiel. I think I've read something to that effect as well, i.e. that statistics dispel any notion that current clubs outperform past series, adjusted for the increasingly aggressive lofting (which is just silly). Obviously a threat to golf club manufacturers, but does it makes sense to regularly "upgrade" clubs - any improvement would be so minor that it's probably outbalanced by the performance improvement gained from learning a particular set of clubs by keep playing with them season after season?

[Lihu]

I don't remember exactly how it works, but I doubt the average player is going to get 2X with even 100% COR.

The average player might likely gain only 20 yards for an average of 228 yard drives. I'm kind of taking a wild stab that most people play tees that are too long for them anyway, so the gains would just put them in line with playing where many of them do already.

Even on the longer side of the driving spectrum, the players might see 30 yards?

So, it's not likely the courses need to change much at all.

Edited October 29, 2017 by Lihu

[Xunzi]

I see your point, I think I was making a more hypothetical point - you could imagine COR >1, some new shafts, ball material and other equipment that could keep pushing the yardage.

The fact that COR limit right now is 0.83 and not 0.85 or 1.0 for that matter, I guess is more a matter of drawing the line somewhere?

Edited October 29, 2017 by Xunzi

[RandallT]

1) Im fine with the limits now- even though, like you, I tend to be against restrictions to innovation. I’m ok with a line in the sand somewhere,and the USGA/ R&A seem like good custodians of where the line makes sense. 

2) I generally agree that most of us would not benefit from frequent club “upgrades.”  But if you are someone who has been through major swing changes since your last purchase, it seems like a smart thing to try out the current market.

Get a fitting of major brands that fit your eye, and perhaps some technology suits your new swing pattern: perimeter weighting, center of gravity, etc. Hard to read about clubs and decide, and best to just sample them for your exact swing.

 

[billchao]

4 hours ago, Xunzi said:

1) Do you agree with the COR regulation / regulation in general that restricts manufacturers from producing clubs that create ever longer distances?

I'm fine with it.

4 hours ago, Xunzi said:

2) Given that the incremental improvement in clubs from year to year is so small (if there is one), does it make sense to change golf clubs?

It largely depends on how old your clubs are, and which clubs you're talking about, and . Changes in tech tend to have a larger effect in drivers than irons, but generally speaking you're not going to see much improvement from year to year, with some exceptions. For example, the Ping G400 driver is definitely an improvement on the previous G driver, but even then it's up to the individual golfer to decide if something like a 5mph increase in ball speed is worth $400.

4 hours ago, Xunzi said:

It seems to me that most new clubs for the last few years are only improvements in marketing spiel.

I'd actually argue that marketing spiel hasn't changed at all and that's why consumers are tired of it. Every year a manufacturer claims their club is the longest ever? That's not an improvement, that's literally the same line over and over again.

4 hours ago, Xunzi said:

I think I've read something to that effect as well, i.e. that statistics dispel any notion that current clubs outperform past series

I'd love to see the actually research on that. Like I said, you're only going to see marginal gains from year to year, and a large part of design has to do with forgiveness because of COR limits. They can improve club performance off mis-hits but just the small variances from swing to swing alone can be enough to mask those improvements. It's not even something that's easily observable, as most of us equate improvement with lowering our handicaps, but there are so many factors that go into scoring that it can be hard to even say what the effect of new equipment on our games is.

I'll give you a personal example. Last year, I did a clubfitting and reshafted my irons on the recommendation of the fitter. My previous shafts were too light for me and as a result, I was launching the ball too low (the opposite effect for most people) and with too little spin. He asked me if I had trouble stopping my long irons on the greens and I told him I wouldn't know because I don't hit the greens with them. I don't have trouble stopping my long irons on the greens now but is that from the equipment change or improvements to my swing? I couldn't tell you for certain, but at least I know my equipment is not at fault for my mistakes.

Golf is like any other skill. You don't want your tools to hold you back, but the best tools in the world can't make up for lack of skill.

4 hours ago, Xunzi said:

adjusted for the increasingly aggressive lofting (which is just silly)

Lofts aren't getting stronger just for marketing gimmicks, nor is "increasingly aggressive lofting" occurring at the rate you seem to be insinuating. If you look at the past few years of Taylormade specs, for example, you'll see that some lofts between sets (in the same family line) have come down while others have stayed the same. Lofts are different now than the industry standard from 10 years ago, but other design elements are at play. They can't just make lofts stronger simply so people hit them farther because playability is a factor.

5 hours ago, Xunzi said:

Obviously a threat to golf club manufacturers, but does it makes sense to regularly "upgrade" clubs - any improvement would be so minor that it's probably outbalanced by the performance improvement gained from learning a particular set of clubs by keep playing with them season after season?

As a general rule, you're going to get more value out of your dollar by spending it on good instruction to improve your swing than simply buying new clubs, but improving your swing is more work than buying new clubs and people tend to want easy. I think that's what marketing really exploits, this desire for instant gratification. The consumer is still ultimately responsible for their purchasing decisions.

I generally tell people if their equipment is 10 years old, it would be worth looking into upgrading. That doesn't mean they need to buy the latest release on the market, but there are good deals to be found in discounted models from previous years and the used club market. If your clubs are only a few years old, though, it might not be worth a change.

[arturo28mx]

In my view, club improvements are not only related to distance, but also to MOI and lower center of gravity, meaning more forgiveness when hitting off the sweet spot.

I remember watching a video of a comparison of current drivers versus drivers of twenty years ago. The distance increase of new drivers was noticeable, but even more so was less dispersion.

[Pretzel]

8 hours ago, Xunzi said:

1) Do you agree with the COR regulation / regulation in general that restricts manufacturers from producing clubs that create ever longer distances?

I have no issues with the COR limit, it's been a design regulation for a long time now and I wouldn't consider it detrimental to the game. People can still purchase and play clubs and balls that break the COR rules, so long as it's for fun and not in tournaments. Changing it would certainly make the ball fly longer, but I don't particularly see the point in changing the COR rules either way (up or down). I don't see the ball flying 20 yards longer or shorter having a large impact on the game as a whole besides forcing everyone to go out and buy new equipment to compete. It would be good for club manufacturers, but not for the average golfer who wants to play in his weekend men's club events.

8 hours ago, Xunzi said:

2) Given that the incremental improvement in clubs from year to year is so small (if there is one), does it make sense to change golf clubs?

I don't think the average golfer will find much difference between the latest and greatest and last years model, but I am fairly confident they'll eventually find a difference if they just keep testing the newest gear against their current equipment. The improvements are incremental, but add enough incremental improvements together and you get an impactful difference. For example, my first full-sized driver was a G10 that I bought on clearance and installed a Proforce V2 shaft into. I tested that driver every year against the new latest and greatest (Ping, Callaway, Taylormade, Titleist) and didn't notice much of a difference until the year of the G30. That year I started seeing noticeably longer drives with the new driver as compared to my old G10, and it was enough to convince me to buy the G30 (I liked it better than the other options that year). I'm still doing my testing somewhat regularly and I may end up purchasing a low-spin driver in the next year or two since I've found they tend to help me get some extra distance now that I strike the ball pretty consistently. 

 

In other words, it's not going to be worth it to go out and buy the new hotness every single year unless the money is inconsequential to you. It is, however, worth it to go out and at least test each year to see if this is the year where the cumulative improvements make a new purchase worthwhile.

[WUTiger]

8 hours ago, Xunzi said:

Perhaps, introduce a "no tech limits" variety of golf, with courses adjusted to clubs driving 1000 yards, but otherwise happy with current regulation - interested to hear arguments to the contrary.

Let's say we get tech jack which will allow the average golfer to hit a driver only 400 yds. This would deliver us "no tech limits" courses of the following composition.

Avg. Par 5: 820 yds x   4 = 3280
Avg. Par 4: 650 yds x 10 = 6500
Avg. Par 3: 280 yds x   4 = 1120
.............Total Yardage = 10,900 yards

10,900 yards is 1.51 times longer than golf from Tournament tees of 7,200.

With the exception of 320-acre loosely routed courses in forest preserves, I'm not sure where all this extra tee box distance will come from. Plus, the golf club's liability insurance would go through the roof if you had fairways crisscrossing each other. Sorry, economics make this a no-go.

8 hours ago, Xunzi said:

2) Given that the incremental improvement in clubs from year to year is so small (if there is one), does it make sense to change golf clubs?

Let's say that you, as a beginner, bought a bag of golf clubs without testing them. After a season, you're having driver problems. You go see a clubfitter, and find out you only get 70 MPH clubhead speed and 12 degrees of launch with your driver which sports a 95-gram XXStiff shaft. Wouldn't it make sense to switch to a driver with a more helpful shaft?

Also, a person's body and swing sometimes change over the years. About age 53 (don't ask me why, Golf Digest just likes this number), male golfers swinging stiff shafted might get a fitting to see if they can still play the stiffs without losing distance.

If you like the clubs you have, be slow to switch.

Note: Some people have different switch thresholds. For example, I tested the new Epic driver with my XR Pro 665 shaft inserted into it. The yardage boost was about 6 yards. But, that's not worth $499 to me.

[ghalfaire]

On 10/29/2017 at 2:12 AM, Xunzi said:

Two related questions:

1) Do you agree with the COR regulation / regulation in general that restricts manufacturers from producing clubs that create ever longer distances?

 

2) Given that the incremental improvement in clubs from year to year is so small (if there is one), does it make sense to change golf clubs?

 

1.  I too don't like regulations that limit technical advancements .  But in this case I believe it is warranted to protect the game.  Having said that I doubt most golfers with double digit handicaps would benefit from COR of greater than .85.

2.  I agree that changing clubs every year is a waste of money that could be spent on lessons and new grips.

On 10/29/2017 at 4:50 AM, Xunzi said:

I see your point, I think I was making a more hypothetical point - you could imagine COR >1, some new shafts, ball material and other equipment that could keep pushing the yardage.

The fact that COR limit right now is 0.83 and not 0.85 or 1.0 for that matter, I guess is more a matter of drawing the line somewhere?

The laws of physics say you cannot achieve a COR > 1, you would have to create energy to do that,  and as a practical matter a COR = 1 (an elastic collision) isn't possible either as long as there is friction in the world. 

[Ty_Webb]

57 minutes ago, ghalfaire said:

The laws of physics say you cannot achieve a COR > 1, you would have to create energy to do that,  and as a practical matter a COR = 1 (an elastic collision) isn't possible either as long as there is friction in the world. 

It would be fascinating to watch a driver with a COR of 1 though. It would be completely silent for a start, because you couldn't have any energy leak and still achieve it.

[Vinsk]

22 hours ago, WUTiger said:

Let's say we get tech jack which will allow the average golfer to hit a driver only 400 yds. This would deliver us "no tech limits" courses of the following composition.

Avg. Par 5: 820 yds x   4 = 3280
Avg. Par 4: 650 yds x 10 = 6500
Avg. Par 3: 280 yds x   4 = 1120
.............Total Yardage = 10,900 yards

10,900 yards is 1.51 times longer than golf from Tournament tees of 7,200.

With the exception of 320-acre loosely routed courses in forest preserves, I'm not sure where all this extra tee box distance will come from. Plus, the golf club's liability insurance would go through the roof if you had fairways crisscrossing each other. Sorry, economics make this a no-go.

Let's say that you, as a beginner, bought a bag of golf clubs without testing them. After a season, you're having driver problems. You go see a clubfitter, and find out you only get 70 MPH clubhead speed and 12 degrees of launch with your driver which sports a 95-gram XXStiff shaft. Wouldn't it make sense to switch to a driver with a more helpful shaft?

Also, a person's body and swing sometimes change over the years. About age 53 (don't ask me why, Golf Digest just likes this number), male golfers swinging stiff shafted might get a fitting to see if they can still play the stiffs without losing distance.

If you like the clubs you have, be slow to switch.

Note: Some people have different switch thresholds. For example, I tested the new Epic driver with my XR Pro 665 shaft inserted into it. The yardage boost was about 6 yards. But, that's not worth $499 to me.

Is it true that 'shaving' the club face on driver can give substantial distance gains? Can't remember where, maybe on ebay, I saw an ad where a company will micro-shave the face of your driver then re-groove it so it appears to be legal though it isn't. Does that technology really make that much difference?

[jlbos83]

I'm content with the restrictions.  I would not object to rolling back a bit, but that isn't really viable.

As far as getting new clubs, I was wondering if the improvements that players attribute to new clubs might be more attributable to better fitting, or perhaps better said, better fitting to their game as it evolves over time.  Clubs that were good for someone five years ago might not be a great match now,  So a new set that fits might seem to be a great improvement, but was it the new heads, or the new fit?

[WUTiger]

4 hours ago, Vinsk said:

...I saw an ad where a company will micro-shave the face of your driver then re-groove it so it appears to be legal though it isn't ...

As thin as modern driver faces are, I would worry the driver crown/face would cave in after a few good hits. Here on TST, we're getting scattered reports of driver faces and crowns cracking, even without microshaving.

[ghalfaire]

2 hours ago, WUTiger said:

As thin as modern driver faces are, I would worry the driver crown/face would cave in after a few good hits. Here on TST, we're getting scattered reports of driver faces and crowns cracking, even without microshaving.

Most metals will "work harden" when flexed many times and become more brittle.  I would think the new drivers would have some propensity to do that and crack sooner than the older less flexible drivers.

[Pretzel]

2 hours ago, WUTiger said:

As thin as modern driver faces are, I would worry the driver crown/face would cave in after a few good hits. Here on TST, we're getting scattered reports of driver faces and crowns cracking, even without microshaving.

I wouldn't want to shave down the face of my driver. I know multiple people now that have had their driver faces crack with a swing speed similar to mine, so I'm just crossing my fingers that my impact is scattered enough around the face to spread the wear evenly and make my club last longer. 

That said, I doubt the shaving of the face would give you a very large benefit. It might slightly increase the COR, but if you were aiming for a higher COR you would have different design for the driver than we see nowadays. Nowadays they're just trying to get as much of the face as possible to have that maximum COR, or at least close to maximum, to make mishits less penalizing.

[Xunzi]

On 10/29/2017 at 2:03 PM, RandallT said:

But if you are someone who has been through major swing changes since your last purchase, it seems like a smart thing to try out the current market.

Get a fitting of major brands that fit your eye, and perhaps some technology suits your new swing pattern: perimeter weighting, center of gravity, etc. Hard to read about clubs and decide, and best to just sample them for your exact swing.

Good point. Changes in the swing, whether by purpose or age or other factors, justify club changes. Yet, I feel like people change clubs way more often than that; every other season, to get the "best" clubs and wonder if that really is warranted. As you might imply, I wouldn't be surprised if most would gain more by fitting a 5 year old or even 10 year old model than buying a new model unfitted.

 

[Xunzi]

 

On 10/29/2017 at 3:32 PM, billchao said:

I'd love to see the actually research on that.

I'll see if I can find where I saw that.

On 10/29/2017 at 3:32 PM, billchao said:

Lofts are different now than the industry standard from 10 years ago, but other design elements are at play. They can't just make lofts stronger simply so people hit them farther because playability is a factor.

If I understand you correctly, you're saying that advances in forgiveness design has enabled more aggressive lofts? What I don't understand is the inherent value in making a former "5 iron" now a "6 iron"? Perhaps iron numbers should just be replaced with loft specs.

On 10/29/2017 at 3:32 PM, billchao said:

I generally tell people if their equipment is 10 years old, it would be worth looking into upgrading.

Seems like a good guideline. However, isn't this time getting longer and longer as the improvement increments are getting increasingly smaller? Perhaps today's equipment has 15 years of life time and the equipment in 5 years from now will have 20?

On 10/29/2017 at 7:06 PM, WUTiger said:

Avg. Par 5: 820 yds x   4 = 3280
Avg. Par 4: 650 yds x 10 = 6500
Avg. Par 3: 280 yds x   4 = 1120
.............Total Yardage = 10,900 yards

10,900 yards is 1.51 times longer than golf from Tournament tees of 7,200.

With the exception of 320-acre loosely routed courses in forest preserves, I'm not sure where all this extra tee box distance will come from. Plus, the golf club's liability insurance would go through the roof if you had fairways crisscrossing each other. Sorry, economics make this a no-go.

Great analysis and agreed, unless offset by demand (which seems unlikely), the cost of such courses would be prohibitively costly.

On 10/29/2017 at 7:06 PM, WUTiger said:

Also, a person's body and swing sometimes change over the years. About age 53 (don't ask me why, Golf Digest just likes this number), male golfers swinging stiff shafted might get a fitting to see if they can still play the stiffs without losing distance.

True but that probably would justify club change far less often than what is commonplace now.

15 hours ago, ghalfaire said:

The laws of physics say you cannot achieve a COR > 1, you would have to create energy to do that,  and as a practical matter a COR = 1 (an elastic collision) isn't possible either as long as there is friction in the world.

It's actually possible (additional energy being created by the impact), but I highly doubtful if it could ever be achieved in a golf club, so the point might well be moot  

[Xunzi]

To be clear on the COR I don’t mean energy would be created but rather released, but anyways it’s a bit sci-fi  More likely changes to balls and shafts could keep increasing distances.