The march of technology?

[easyjay39402]

Callaway, TaylorMade, etc held a demo day at my club last Saturday. As I’m 74 and need more distance off the tee, I was interested in the 2018 drivers. The vendors had each set up a fitting station using Trackman. After some experimentation and advice I settled on the Rogue at the Callaway station. Hit my first ball with the recommended setup perfectly, a lovely ball flight. The Callaway guy showed me the results - lit up all the green indicators - the only guy to do it that day.  He said that the distance - 236 - was the max I could achieve with my swing speed (87).

I found the results odd, as 236 yards is also exactly the max that I hit my old Nike 400, circa 2004.  Although I don’t have data on my Callaway X-460, the distance appears to be similar. I guess that I will spend the $500 on the Rogue, as it’s a beautiful club, aesthetically pleasing.

Still, I’ve been reading that the USGA is concerned about technology shortening courses. Alas, I’m not seeing it. In my experience, advances in ball construction are more important than the club.

[Moxley]

I think most of the big improvements in clubs came prior to 2004 rather than after. They can't make the face anymore springy than they could do then, which is the main thing that helps it go further. So other than tweaking a few things here and there to suit certain players - loft, shaft weight etc, the clubs will go about the same distance they used to - maybe just a bit further on off center hits. 

I doubt I'll upgrade my Driver (2017) for a very long time unless it breaks.

[Patch]

I am of the belief that longer ball flights due to advancements in technology, are tied closely with the golfer's swing speed. If the golfer does not have sufficient swing speed, the tech advancements don't do hat golfer any good. Now, what that swing speed might be before the advancements kick in, I have no idea. I know I don't have it. 

I have a Golf Galaxy near me that I sometimes visit. I usually try out the latest, greatest drivers. The ball goes only as far, as my old gamer according to their monitors. Sometimes even less..

Like @easyjay39402 posted, balls seem to help out more than clubs do, when it comes to slower swing speeds......in my opinion. 

[RussUK]

I wonder how much of the technology these days is marketing spiel and how much is of actual benefit to the golfer?

There is obviously some useful tech out there to aid forgivness in the likes of GI and SGI irons and in the new generation of soft golf balls but when it comes to drivers and distance im still on the fence getting a sore arse!. The amount of times i see a review of a new driver that has promised extra yards or better off centre hits and the reviewer cant tell the difference between the previous model makes me wonder how much more technical "advances" they can find within current regs?

[Vinsk]

11 hours ago, easyjay39402 said:

I’ve been reading that the USGA is concerned about technology shortening courses.

Yeah and it’s all nonsense. Golf is hard and will always win. No need at all to shorten any distance.

[saevel25]

6 minutes ago, RussUK said:

I wonder how much of the technology these days is marketing spiel and how much is of actual benefit to the golfer?

There has been a few big improvements in technology,

1. Maximizing the COR outward from the sweet spot.
2. Increasing MOI
3. Lowering the spin rates (this also is partially due to the golf ball as well)
4. Better ability to custom fit golfers. (improvement in ball monitors, and a huge range golf shafts)

What has really helped for me is going from a driver that has a 3000-3500 spin rate, launching at 8-10 degrees to 2000-2400 rpm, launching at 12-13 degrees.

A lot of it's marketing as well. They hype small differences in robotic testing.

I will say, for someone who swings fast, I use to have to live with sub par launch numbers. Now, I am an easy person to fit for a golf club. 9-10 degree driver with lower-ish spin profile, 70-80 gram shaft with a low to medium-low launch and spin profile. I can easily go on the internet and find a driver, and 3-4 golf shaft options before even going to get fitted.

 

 

[Sadinpeoria]

13 hours ago, easyjay39402 said:

Callaway, TaylorMade, etc held a demo day at my club last Saturday. As I’m 74 and need more distance off the tee, I was interested in the 2018 drivers. The vendors had each set up a fitting station using Trackman. After some experimentation and advice I settled on the Rogue at the Callaway station. Hit my first ball with the recommended setup perfectly, a lovely ball flight. The Callaway guy showed me the results - lit up all the green indicators - the only guy to do it that day.  He said that the distance - 236 - was the max I could achieve with my swing speed (87).

I found the results odd, as 236 yards is also exactly the max that I hit my old Nike 400, circa 2004.  Although I don’t have data on my Callaway X-460, the distance appears to be similar. I guess that I will spend the $500 on the Rogue, as it’s a beautiful club, aesthetically pleasing.

Still, I’ve been reading that the USGA is concerned about technology shortening courses. Alas, I’m not seeing it. In my experience, advances in ball construction are more important than the club.

A friend of mine still uses a macgregor mt60 that's 10 years old, although he has changed shafts a couple of times. He takes it with him to compare with whatever he demo's and it's still in his bag.  280 yds in the middle of the fairway on most swings.  

[billchao]

2 hours ago, RussUK said:

The amount of times i see a review of a new driver that has promised extra yards or better off centre hits and the reviewer cant tell the difference between the previous model makes me wonder how much more technical "advances" they can find within current regs?

It's in the fine print. They'll say a driver can increase your distance by 20 yards, but the claim is based on a single individual who was using a poorly fit 15 year old driver.

Most models aren't significantly different than their predecessors, but once in a while a change will have a bigger impact. There's not much benefit to buying new every year. It's kind of like the automobile industry.

14 hours ago, easyjay39402 said:

The Callaway guy showed me the results - lit up all the green indicators - the only guy to do it that day.  He said that the distance - 236 - was the max I could achieve with my swing speed (87).

I found the results odd, as 236 yards is also exactly the max that I hit my old Nike 400, circa 2004.  Although I don’t have data on my Callaway X-460, the distance appears to be similar.

If you're hitting it from the sweetspot consistently, you can probably play any club as long as the launch characteristics are correct for you. Most of the technology goes into making off-center hits perform closer to centered hits.

[RussUK]

4 minutes ago, billchao said:

 It's kind of like the automobile industry.

That's Taylormade down to a T. Lots of "facelift" models but no major improvements on the one it replaced from 6 months ago

[Adam C]

Distance is primarily a factor of ball speed. And ball speed is a result of club head speed and solid impact (ie Smash Factor). Spin rate and launch angle will influence it, but not nearly as much as speed. The only way the manufacturers are going to get you any more speed is by making the club lighter and or longer. 

The industry will continue to put out new equipment but the driver itself is basically no different since they maxed out COR and head size. Everything now is just bells, whistles, and paint colors. Not to mention that the huge differences they advertise requires tour level speeds and will be much smaller for recreational players.

At this point with technology, the most we can hope for is keeping the distance we have as we get older.

[tristanhilton85]

2 hours ago, billchao said:

If you're hitting it from the sweetspot consistently, you can probably play any club as long as the launch characteristics are correct for you. Most of the technology goes into making off-center hits perform closer to centered hits.

Yup. Pretty much this. Most of the technology is centered around producing good results on not so good swings.

For the OP, both clubs may essentially have the same "max" yardage, but I'd say that he's more likely to get more consistent results (get to that "max" yardage) more often with the new driver.

[billchao]

4 hours ago, RussUK said:

That's Taylormade down to a T. Lots of "facelift" models but no major improvements on the one it replaced from 6 months ago

It's been a couple of years since TaylorMade moved away from that business model. They release club lines similar to how other companies do it now.

2 hours ago, Adam C said:

The industry will continue to put out new equipment but the driver itself is basically no different since they maxed out COR and head size.

That's not true at all. Even within the confines of CoR and size limits, there are different ways to design a driver to perform differently. Forgiveness and minimizing ball speed loss on off-center hits is a huge part of club design. Placement of the CoG will change the characteristics of the club. Even within a single lineup, companies can put out different heads aimed towards different types of golfers.

2 hours ago, Adam C said:

Not to mention that the huge differences they advertise requires tour level speeds and will be much smaller for recreational players.

It's the opposite, actually. I mentioned it above, but the huge gains they claim on advertising are based off of anomalous golfers who are average players. Tour players and other good ballstrikers don't see as much benefit from the technology as average players who don't consistently hit the sweetspot.

Tour players update their clubs almost every year and their driving stays more or less the same.

[Adam C]

3 hours ago, billchao said:

5 hours ago, Adam C said:

The industry will continue to put out new equipment but the driver itself is basically no different since they maxed out COR and head size.

That's not true at all. Even within the confines of CoR and size limits, there are different ways to design a driver to perform differently. Forgiveness and minimizing ball speed loss on off-center hits is a huge part of club design. Placement of the CoG will change the characteristics of the club. Even within a single lineup, companies can put out different heads aimed towards different types of golfers.

I should not have said no difference, I agree with that much. I should have said almost meaningless difference. Lets look at a couple numbers. In the USGA / R&A 2017 distance report, a sample of average male golfers showed a distance of 208 yards in 2016 and this represented an increase of 8 yards over a 21 year period. I could not find any more information on the sample size or demographic of these golfers. Found a Golf Digest article showing driving distance for 6 or better handicaps has increased from 234 to 236 from 1996 to 2017. Now 21 or higher handicappers saw an increase from 165 to 188 over the same time. 23 yards over 21 years. In case you were wondering PGA tour numbers were 26.6 yard increase over that time. Of course what I said was referencing changes since 2004 in clubs. So below is a driving distance graph from that previously mentioned 2017 report. Looks like the PGA tour average has gone up about 7 yards since 2003, LPGA and Champions about 5 yards. 7 yards over 14 years. If you look at the larger chart going back further you will see larger increases leading up to 2003 where it levels off more. Also below is one more chart from Arccos, again from a Golf Digest article showing driver distances by handicap for the last 4 years. Hmmm. Newer always better? So I will stand by my original statement. If you are on tour or can't break 100 then your 2004 Callaway Big Bertha or Taylormade 580 might be costing you around 7 yards. For those in between, it's probably less. Call it 5 yards over 15 years (a foot a year)! CoG movement, face design changes, moveable weights, adjustable hoses, carbon composites, paint jobs = 1 foot a year.

Edited August 21, 2018 by Adam C
images did not attach

[Adam C]

Another try with the graphs.