I have two friends that have worked in design for one of the big two (TM and Callaway) for both woods and irons/wedges. Roughly 95% of the design work they do annually is for sound or aesthetics. 5% is put into producing more ball speed or spin characteristics, most of which is dedicated at the woods (non-driver) because they aren’t regulated like drivers.
My one friend had some awesome ideas that he tried to pitch to get resources to prototype (movable weighting, alt materials) and they get shot down because innovation isn’t actually what these companies are built around, and it’s reflected in the respective budgets R&D and marketing get.
One big difference you don’t seem to be accounting for: you can (usually) play from a penalty area (if you choose). You aren’t permitted to play from OB. It might be someone’s lawn or something, but it’s not part of the golf course.
New OB rule is two strokes, basically. Not the same as “red stakes with water.” And you get to move more than two clublengths.
Sure. But there’s still no good, logical, or other reason that benefits the game of golf or golfers that OB shouldn’t be lateral where it crossed out of bounds.
Not nearly has bad as people made it out to be. Always nice to hear from Mike. Are people seriously upset he hasn’t made an enormous shift in golf equipment regulation immediately after taking the job? Some of you need to get a grip.
But then again, the rule could be “everything is lateral, and lateral hazards are a two-stroke penalty.” Or it could be, “everything is lateral, and lateral hazards get a free drop within two-clubs of where it entered, no closer to the hole.” Would you be cool with either or both of those? At the end of the day, the question is how much the rules should penalize very bad shots.
