Two Drivers One Too Many?

[LobWedge]

I'm not attempting to discount the value of Phil Mickelson's performance this week. He's had one of the finest performances that I have ever seen. My question is, with the amount of coaching and training resources available, and with the technology and laser precise equipment fitting available to tour players today, does playing with two drivers that produce two very distinct ball flights create an unfair advantage?

With nano technology shafts, maximum CT/MOI heads, and softer, lower spin balls, should the PGA Tour, or even the global ruling bodies, institute a one driver rule for competition?

I'm on the fence with this one, mainly because I still believe in the "archer" not the "arrow" scenario. But year after year the "arrow" gains ground.

[dbleber]

Should they have a 2 wedge rule? Your allowed 14 clubs, which ones you want should be your business.

[Kilroy]

14 clubs. You pick. Take 10 drivers and 4 putters for all I care.

[Golfbum]

I agree, carry whatever clubs you want. As long as the clubs conform to the U.S.G.A. rules they why not take adavatage?
In my mind it is no different than the guy who carries 4 wedges.
I wonder how many other pro's will start carrying 2 drivers? Imagine the R7, one set up to fade, one set up to draw.
Isn't technology great?

[covanant]

I was not aware he had 2 in the bag!I thought he was alterneting between rounds.
Whatever,14 clubs is the rule.
Otherwise some of us would have alot more,ahem geoff

[BC MIST]

With nano technology shafts, maximum CT/MOI heads, and softer, lower spin balls, should the PGA Tour, or even the global ruling bodies, institute a one driver rule for competition?

Nope!

[1972Apex]

I often carry two drivers. When I do I have to drop a wedge or the 3 wood.
I'm actually more surprised that no one has done it on the PGA tour before, but them they can actually hit ALL of their clubs .

[el tigre]

With nano technology shafts, maximum CT/MOI heads, and softer, lower spin balls, should the PGA Tour, or even the global ruling bodies, institute a one driver rule for competition?

That would a much more radical change than you think. That's because according to Rules of Golf, there is really no such thing as a "driver".

Right now I can have in my bag a 13* "fairway wood" (usually described as a "strong" 3-wood) and a 14* "driver" (usually described as a "high launch" driver). So how do you distinguish between what is a "driver" and what is a "fairway wood"? And since you can tee off with virtually any club in your bag, why would you want to make such a distinction?

Personally, I think the 14-club rule is irrelevant. It was largely instituted to protect caddies from being forced to lug around gargantuan golf bags from over-zealous golf pros who couldn't make a decision about what clubs to use. Most PGA pros today could go with less, and with caddies pretty much extinct most amateurs could benefit from carrying more. Still, I guess you have to draw the line somewhere.

IMHO you get 14 sticks and you can call them what you want and do with what you will, it always comes down to the indian and not the arrow.

[fundonny]

I never thought of it, and I'm a pretty smart guy! LOL! Might do it this summer though, just to see how it works out.

[byerxa]

I put together a 13* driver over the winter and when I tried it down south it worked great. It would never go right unless I put the worst swing possible on it. My regular 10.5* driver typically goes straight with some draw but I can power fade it when I am swinging better. I was already planning on carrying both drivers on a course where I would have almost no need for a 3 wood off the deck. The 13* driver is more reliable than the 3 wood off the tee (3 wood tends to go left too much off the tee). I figure I am better off laying up once a round from 240 yards in favour of more options off the tee.

[LobWedge]

Okay folks, you're missing the point here. I didn't ask if they should do away with or change the 14 club rule.

Lets try this. I carry one driver and always have. If I want to hit a fade or a draw I have to change my stance, ball position, swing plane, grip pressure, etc. If I don't happen to get everything reasonably right, I will not get the desired result. If I do get the desired result, it's because I made the necessary mechanical motions to get the job done. That's the archer.

Now let's say that I start carrying two drivers, both of which are built to identical specs, except that one head is weighted to promote a draw and one is set up to encourage a fade. And even though the driver is arguably the hardest club in the bag to control because of length and loft, eureka, I have only one swing path to master regardless of the shape of the fairway in front of me. That's now the arrow talking.

The multiple wedge, or any other club, argument is irrelevant because whether I use a 3-iron or a sand wedge, if I make exactly the same swing with either club the distance the ball travels will be different, of course, because of the diference in the length and loft of these clubs, but the direction of flight will be the same.

Playing two drivers the way Mickelson does diminishes the skill required to execute a well struck drive. Where's the sport in that?

[Colby]

He still has to make the shot. And how many times do you use a driver off of the tee, or in Phil's case with his length, how many times? He's not going to use a driver on the par 3's so let's say there is 4 of them. Now he has 14 opportunities to hit driver. There are probably 2 or 3 holes that he may not hit driver for some reason. Let's say 2, which leaves us with 12 holes he will hit driver, 4 of which should be par 5's depending on course layout. Say he scores an even four strokes on each hole, bringing the total number of strokes to 48 strokes for those 12 holes. If he uses the second driver on half of those holes, probably unlikely, but let's use that number, the second driver is used in 6 of 48 shots. How does that really impact the round in question?

As for the type of driver, you are probably using one that can be manipulated. The big faced drivers that are used today are meant to bomb it, not work it. They are made for forgivness and to go straight, not work a fade or a draw. That's what weighting does now. Technology marches on.

But in the end, he still has to make the rest of the shots and get it in the hole.

[byerxa]

No, I'm not missing the point. I think it is simply configuring your bag the best you can within the 14 club rule. Would you make the same case for someone who carries 2 putters, e.g., one good for long putts and one good for short ones that helps with the yips? People are going to score what they do despite the clubs - at best it makes a stroke or two difference. Phil would have lapped the field this week without any driver, let alone 2. What irks me is people who complain about the equipment when in reality people are shooting the same scores today as they were back in the days of persimmon. And when you look at the pros, the clubs are the least of the problem. Advancements in the ball, player training/conditioning, and course grooming are much more responsible for the insane distances these guy hit it than the clubs.

[el tigre]

Okay folks, you're missing the point here. I didn't ask if they should do away with or change the 14 club rule...

...Playing two drivers the way Mickelson does diminishes the skill required to execute a well struck drive. Where's the sport in that?

Actually LobWedge, I think you are missing the point.

The skill in golf does not come from executing one particular aspect of the game better than anyone else. The game is not mastered from executing the longest drive within a certain parameter of accuracy (that is a long-drive competition), nor does it come from having the most accurate shot-making ability (or the game would be played on a par-3 course), nor does it depend on who is the best putter (this isn't mini-golf).

It comes from taking your maximizing your strengths and minimizing your weaknesses in these skills, in a particular event played upon a unique set of course conditions. There are some limits given to the set of tools you use to accomplish this, but considerable leeway is given to the tools you can use so that everyone can be as individual and creative as they want.

A "one-driver" rule would obviously affect a long-bomber with accuracy issues like Phil Mickelson far more than someone like Fred Funk. The assumption you are making is that Fred Funk has more "skill" than Phil Mickelson does, and that the rules punish Funk unfairly by allowing Mickelson to drop one club in place of another driver for more accuracy. I don't think that is true. Fred plays his game according to his strengths and Phil plays the game that suits him - and I don't think either player would have it any other way.

[LobWedge]

He still has to make the shot. And how many times do you use a driver off of the tee, or in Phil's case with his length, how many times? He's not going to use a driver on the par 3's so let's say there is 4 of them. Now he has 14 opportunities to hit driver. There are probably 2 or 3 holes that he may not hit driver for some reason. Let's say 2, which leaves us with 12 holes he will hit driver, 4 of which should be par 5's depending on course layout. Say he scores an even four strokes on each hole, bringing the total number of strokes to 48 strokes for those 12 holes. If he uses the second driver on half of those holes, probably unlikely, but let's use that number, the second driver is used in 6 of 48 shots. How does that really impact the round in question?

As for the type of driver, you are probably using one that can be manipulated. The big faced drivers that are used today are meant to bomb it, not work it. They are made for forgivness and to go straight, not work a fade or a draw. That's what weighting does now. Technology marches on.

But in the end, he still has to make the rest of the shots and get it in the hole.

I'm not saying he didn't deserve to win Dave, but how much closer would the result have been if he didn't have that "advantage". Phil jumped from 118th to 86th in driving accuracy on tour in one tournament, averaging over 309 yards (11th) and 71% (8th) of fairways this week while doing it. His season average for fairways before this week was 57%! You can't tell me that two drivers didn't have something to do with that. IMHO, Mickelson didn't break rule 4-2a but he sure thumbed his nose at it on the way by.

As you know, I'm not Tiger's #1 fan, but I have to say I agree with a lot of the stuff he has to say about subjects like this...

[B Nation]

I think there is a reason Pro Golfers don't take 2 Drivers with them. It's pointless.

I see your argument about making one Driver hit a different shot, but most of these guys can play draws or fades anyways. Most guys shape all their shots. Not just their drivers.

Taking 2 drivers hurt Phil on Saturday because he didnt have his 56 degree wedge. He hit 2 in the drink on 18 because he was between clubs.

[LobWedge]

Actually LobWedge, I think you are missing the point.

The skill in golf does not come from executing one particular aspect of the game better than anyone else. The game is not mastered from executing the longest drive within a certain parameter of accuracy (that is a long-drive competition), nor does it come from having the most accurate shot-making ability (or the game would be played on a par-3 course), nor does it depend on who is the best putter (this isn't mini-golf).

It comes from taking your maximizing your strengths and minimizing your weaknesses in these skills, in a particular event played upon a unique set of course conditions. There are some limits given to the set of tools you use to accomplish this, but considerable leeway is given to the tools you can use so that everyone can be as individual and creative as they want.

A "one-driver" rule would obviously affect a long-bomber with accuracy issues like Phil Mickelson far more than someone like Fred Funk. The assumption you are making is that Fred Funk has more "skill" than Phil Mickelson does, and that the rules punish Funk unfairly by allowing Mickelson to drop one club in place of another driver for more accuracy. I don't think that is true. Fred plays his game according to his strengths and Phil plays the game that suits him - and I don't think either player would have it any other way.

You're making my case for me. Why should Mickelson be rewarded with greater accuracy because he can't deal with his own physical swing flaws. Do you not think that the s**t would hit the fan if they gave guys like Funk drivers larger than 460cc and +.830 COR, and said to guys like Tiger and Phil "sorry you already hit it far enough"? Accuracy is supposed to diminish with distance, it's mathematical fact. The most insidious phrase in golf today is "shot correction".

[jonf]

How many times in a round is that extra driver going to make a HUGE difference. Sure, it will help on a few holes, but considering how few holes the pros actually hit driver on, and then taking into account the fact that he may only need to fade it on one or two holes, its not going to make a huge difference. What he gains in the ability to hit that shot, he loses with the lack of a different club.

In reality the question you are asking is flawed. It has nothing to do with two drivers - it has a lot more to do with game improvement clubs in general. Your problem with the two drivers is that it makes certain shots easier. Well, so does having a particular type of wedge, or having a hybrid instead of an iron, or having a ProV1 versus a crappy old wound ball. If you object to equipment giving an advantage over other golfers, then having two drivers is NOT the biggest problem out there. If you really want a level playing field equipment wise, give everyone the same clubs. Otherwise, the closest that you can come to a level field is to have as few limitations as possible, so that everyone can make the choices that are right for their game.

[el tigre]

You're making my case for me. Why should Mickelson be rewarded with greater accuracy because he can't deal with his own physical swing flaws. ".

He is dealing with it. He is choosing to carry two clubs with similar lofts in order to hit the fairway more often. And you have not really addressed my original point - a driver is simply a fairway wood with a totally arbitrary number on the bottom.

Do you not think that the s**t would hit the fan if they gave guys like Funk drivers larger than 460cc and +.830 COR, and said to guys like Tiger and Phil "sorry you already hit it far enough"?

Ah yes, have different rules for different players - that will really make golf more fair.

Accuracy is supposed to diminish with distance, it's mathematical fact. The most insidious phrase in golf today is "shot correction".

If it was a "mathematical" fact, then the longest driver would have the worst accuracy. We both know that isn't the case.

One of the great things about this game is the creativity that the players are able to bring to the sport. That is expressed not just in the shots that they execute, but in the clubs that they choose to put in their bag and play in a particular situation. Tiger and Phil will play a 3-wood in many situations where Fred Funk would have to play a driver to get the same result. Vijay rarely plays a 3-wood off the tee at all. Tiger, Phil and VJ will obviously gain an "accuracy" advantage by using a 3-wood instead of a 1-wood in these instances. Should the rules mandate that a driver be played off the tee on all par 4's and par 5's in order to "level the playing field". I don't think so.

[LobWedge]

How many times in a round is that extra driver going to make a HUGE difference. Sure, it will help on a few holes, but considering how few holes the pros actually hit driver on, and then taking into account the fact that he may only need to fade it on one or two holes, its not going to make a huge difference. What he gains in the ability to hit that shot, he loses with the lack of a different club.

In reality the question you are asking is flawed. It has nothing to do with two drivers - it has a lot more to do with game improvement clubs in general. Your problem with the two drivers is that it makes certain shots easier. Well, so does having a particular type of wedge, or having a hybrid instead of an iron, or having a ProV1 versus a crappy old wound ball. If you object to equipment giving an advantage over other golfers, then having two drivers is NOT the biggest problem out there. If you really want a level playing field equipment wise, give everyone the same clubs. Otherwise, the closest that you can come to a level field is to have as few limitations as possible, so that everyone can make the choices that are right for their game.

The question is not flawed. It's a direct yes or no question. The only reason other equipment is mentioned here is because the majority of the postersin this thread are using it as an excuse to justify answering "no". I agree with your point about a level playing field. There's a slippery slope here where "game improvement" gets closer and closer to "auto pilot". And, if pros actually hit driver on very few holes, as you said, then why did Mickelson see the need to carry two of them?

[LobWedge]

If it was a "mathematical" fact, then the longest driver would have the worst accuracy. We both know that isn't the case.

You're right! Bubba Watson, 1st in driving distance, is only 189th out of 191 players in driving accuracy on tour. So he's still better than two other guys. Man, did I mess that one up or what?

One of the great things about this game is the creativity that the players are able to bring to the sport. That is expressed not just in the shots that they execute, but in the clubs that they choose to put in their bag and play in a particular situation. Tiger and Phil will play a 3-wood in many situations where Fred Funk would have to play a driver to get the same result. Vijay rarely plays a 3-wood off the tee at all. Tiger, Phil and VJ will obviously gain an "accuracy" advantage by using a 3-wood instead of a 1-wood in these instances. Should the rules mandate that a driver be played off the tee on all par 4's and par 5's in order to "level the playing field". I don't think so.

The creativity in the game comes from the imagination of the player, not from his equipment. So what if Funk hits driver where others hit 3-wood? He obviously has the confidence to do it. Same with Vijay hitting driver a lot. He loves that club. What guys want is to have their cake and eat it too. It's sucking the imagination out of the game. Mandate one driving club and let the player use physical skill to attempt to produce the result, not technology.

[Wknd_Warrior]

Your question boils down to whether clubs that work the ball by design should be allowed at all.

[el tigre]

Mandate one driving club and let the player use physical skill to attempt to produce the result, not technology.

Actually, it is PHYSICAL and MENTAL skill that produces the result. The mental part of the game includes being able to choose any club you wish to play at any time. If you want to tee off with the putter, you just go right ahead (its been done with success on the PGA Tour before).

Phil was #1 in GIR's, #3 in putting average and #5 in driving distance. I don't think it mattered very much what clubs he had in the bag. And every single person in the tournament had the capacity to put the exact same clubs in their bag.

Sure technology has an impact, but it is vastly over-rated - you can thank the propaganda of OEM manufacturers for that. If you give these guys persimmon woods, hickory shafts and gutta percha balls, the same guys will still win most of the time. Only the scores will change.

[jonf]

The question is not flawed. It's a direct yes or no question. The only reason other equipment is mentioned here is because the majority of the postersin this thread are using it as an excuse to justify answering "no". I agree with your point about a level playing field. There's a slippery slope here where "game improvement" gets closer and closer to "auto pilot". And, if pros actually hit driver on very few holes, as you said, then why did Mickelson see the need to carry two of them?

How many times do I use a three wood in a round? Once or twice, MAYBE. Yet, I still bring it with me, as I know that it will help me, even if it only for those two holes. In reality, I'd say that at least three or four clubs in my bag get used only once per round. Yet, I would not dream of leaving them behind. Others might think that I would be better off dropping one or two of them, and adding a hybrid (or something to that effect), but for MY game, I feel that the choice of those particular clubs leaves me with the best chance of winning. Likewise, Phil decided that a second driver would help him.

The reason I say the question is flawed, is because you have chosen to single out the driver (which, as el tigre has pointed out, is a completely arbitrary name for a club) as the particular club that should have additional regulations. I know el tigre has already mentioned this, but if a player has a 10 degree "driver" that he uses for drawing the ball, and happens to have a 13* "driver" for fading the ball, how can you possibly justify telling a player that only one of those clubs is allowed to be carried. They are different clubs, with different lofts, etc.

I do see why you have a problem with having more than one driver, but you cannot make restrictions like the one you have proposed. If you really wanted to limit the number of drivers, the only fair way to make such a change would be to reduce the number of total clubs allowed. If a player could only take 13 clubs, they might think twice about bringing a second driver.

I bring other equipment into this in order to point out that, the true question is not simply about drivers. You have to consider other equipment as well, otherwise the creation of a 'one driver' rule is completely arbitrary.

If your broader point is to suggest that we need to limit game improvement technology and such, I agree wholeheartedly. I have said before on this site that I think the game would be best played if everyone carried the same clubs. I know, however, that this is never going to happen. If there are to be changes made to rules regarding technology, however, I think the number of drivers a certain player carries is the least of the problems. Balls, shaft technology, new clubheads etc. (you all know more about equipment than I do) all do far more to help a player's game than an extra driver.

One more analogy I just came up with, that I think goes back to your original point. I have a lob wedge in my bag, that I use ONLY for flop shots. I use it because it makes the flop shot easier. I was able to perform a flop shot before ever having a lob wedge by opening the face of a SW or PW. But a couple of summers ago, I got a lob wedge because it was a MORE CONSISTENT way of performing a flop shot - it took some of the skill out of it. Does that mean that, because that club's only purpose is to help make a shot that I can perform less consistently with another club, I should not be allowed to carry that club?

[milner_7]

Should they have a 2 wedge rule? Your allowed 14 clubs, which ones you want should be your business.

Agreed. If Phil wants to carry 2 drivers thats his business. As long as he only has 14 clubs that all the power to him!

[fundonny]

This is one serious thread! Essay after essay. I love it!

[covanant]

The problem with this is eventually they will allow on course tweaking of
adjustable drivers.
I'm sure caddy's are adding or removing lead tape between holes,whats stopping them?
People love change,just look at hockey.
I think we should just leave the game alone,keep it traditional.

[Kilroy]

adding or removing lead tape between holes,whats stopping them?

The rules of golf. Are you really sure they cheat?

[covanant]

The rules of golf. Are you really sure they cheat?

Not really sure,but it wouldnt suprise me.

[LobWedge]

How many times do I use a three wood in a round? Once or twice, MAYBE. Yet, I still bring it with me, as I know that it will help me, even if it only for those two holes. In reality, I'd say that at least three or four clubs in my bag get used only once per round. Yet, I would not dream of leaving them behind. Others might think that I would be better off dropping one or two of them, and adding a hybrid (or something to that effect), but for MY game, I feel that the choice of those particular clubs leaves me with the best chance of winning. Likewise, Phil decided that a second driver would help him.

The reason I say the question is flawed, is because you have chosen to single out the driver (which, as el tigre has pointed out, is a completely arbitrary name for a club) as the particular club that should have additional regulations. I know el tigre has already mentioned this, but if a player has a 10 degree "driver" that he uses for drawing the ball, and happens to have a 13* "driver" for fading the ball, how can you possibly justify telling a player that only one of those clubs is allowed to be carried. They are different clubs, with different lofts, etc.

I do see why you have a problem with having more than one driver, but you cannot make restrictions like the one you have proposed. If you really wanted to limit the number of drivers, the only fair way to make such a change would be to reduce the number of total clubs allowed. If a player could only take 13 clubs, they might think twice about bringing a second driver.

I bring other equipment into this in order to point out that, the true question is not simply about drivers. You have to consider other equipment as well, otherwise the creation of a 'one driver' rule is completely arbitrary.

If your broader point is to suggest that we need to limit game improvement technology and such, I agree wholeheartedly. I have said before on this site that I think the game would be best played if everyone carried the same clubs. I know, however, that this is never going to happen. If there are to be changes made to rules regarding technology, however, I think the number of drivers a certain player carries is the least of the problems. Balls, shaft technology, new clubheads etc. (you all know more about equipment than I do) all do far more to help a player's game than an extra driver.

One more analogy I just came up with, that I think goes back to your original point. I have a lob wedge in my bag, that I use ONLY for flop shots. I use it because it makes the flop shot easier. I was able to perform a flop shot before ever having a lob wedge by opening the face of a SW or PW. But a couple of summers ago, I got a lob wedge because it was a MORE CONSISTENT way of performing a flop shot - it took some of the skill out of it. Does that mean that, because that club's only purpose is to help make a shot that I can perform less consistently with another club, I should not be allowed to carry that club?

The reason that I singled out the driver is that it's a club that's always employed "at advantage" to begin with. 99.999% of the time it is used to propel the ball from a tee. You always start with a perfect lie for the ball. As el tigre pointed out, there are high lofted drivers avaliable that may in fact have more loft than some fairway woods, but take that high lofted driver and the strong 3-wood, drop a ball on the deck, and tell me which of those is easier to get airborne. By design, the fairway wood is meant to have a lower CG to make it easier to get the ball airborne. I can count on one hand the number of tour players who can hit driver off the deck. Vijay is one of them, but he needs to change his swing to do it.