Opinion & Analysis
Imagine what drivers will look like in 30 years

At one point in the early 1980s, Dan Pohl was the longest driver on the PGA Tour, averaging 274 yards with the Big Dog. As a teenage spectator watching from afar, I only became aware of him and his prodigious drives at the 1982 Masters. He tore up the back nine and managed to get into a playoff with Craig Stadler, the eventual winner. One thing I did pick up on was that he was using a “metal wood,” and the commentators were analyzing how much this ground-breaking new technology added to his length. I mean, a metal wood! It was the stuff of tomorrow; space-age cool!
This contradiction in terms (how can a wood be made of metal?) was offset by the results. Longer, straighter and more forgiving drives (see, the message hasn’t changed that much in nearly 35 years) resulted from this Pittsburgh Persimmon driver, as one brand so adeptly named it. The sheer audaciousness of this technological breakthrough!
It coincided with the advent of graphite shafts as well. Materials like boron and graphite were enabling club designers to make shafts lighter, stronger and longer, which in turn were delivering more distance with different ball flights. It must have been a golden time for golfing physicists and engineers. No longer were driver heads hand-carved out of blocks of persimmon. These hollow metal heads were designed on computers and cast in volume production lines with high yields and consistency. They offered strength and versatility. The marketing guys were shaping up for a field day. How could they lose?
Very quickly the golf shops filled up with these new metal woods. Persimmon had been around forever and still had its place for the purists, but once Ely Callaway got on board with his Big Bertha creation in 1991, we effectively waved goodbye to wooden-headed clubs forever.
I’d made my mind up that this was the future, so I set about as a 15-year-old aspiring golfer to acquire one. At that age it’s all about the shiny stuff, right? For the previous 12 months, I was learning the game with a Ben Hogan persimmon driver, my pride and joy. It was considered at the time “state of the art” with good quality persimmon and a fancy “speed slot.”
According to a Hogan ad, the slot was a “new and original idea to increase club head speed. This is not a theory, but a fact proven by a well-known physicist!” In terms of specs it said “1” on the sole; I had no idea what loft it was, only that it had a stiff shaft. I got it because it felt nice and I went off and learned how to hit it. The biggest modification I had was putting a new grip on it. The face of the club had four screws, and when you caught one the expression “hit it on the screws” became a very memorable feeling.
The Hogan stick was dropped quicker than a hot potato when I discovered metal. I soon managed to snag my first metal wood, a Titleist PT 9-degree driver from the second-hand bin in my local golf shop. I can’t remember exactly how much I paid for it, though; yes, it was that long ago. It had a steel shaft with a gleaming silver-and-grey color scheme. Man, that head was huge compared to my old Hogan. And from the day and hour I got the new metal driver, I never looked back to a wooden driver. I was sold. I was able to really wallop that thing, and over the next couple of years I nearly wore it out. I could even pick it off the fairway very successfully when my eye was in.
I quickly added a metal three wood — first from Titleist and then from Wilson Staff — and a metal five wood from Mizuno, which was an early predecessor to the hybrid. It had a small head and I was able to hit that thing from almost any lie. It had a gold boron shaft, too. To me, it was so high tech that it almost felt like cheating.
Over the years, I gamed the later offerings from Titleist as well as the latest clubs from TaylorMade, Callaway, Tour Edge, Cobra and Ping. I’ve tried most and make a point of keeping up to date with the latest technology. But how much more technical has it become? It’s interesting that Dan Pohl’s leading stats are now laughable compared with numbers of Tony Finau, who hits it an average of 314 yards per poke. That’s 40 yards folks!
There are now titanium heads, carbon heads, composite heads, face inserts, moveable weights, speed slots, and variable lofts and lies. Launch monitor technology has given us access to knowledge and a level of customization far beyond what we once knew. My specs from 20 years ago were “8.5 degrees with a stiff shaft.” Now I can print off a sheet that looks like it was generated by NASA highlighting my smash factor, spin rates, launch angles, ball speed and what I had for breakfast. A pro can now recommend the perfect club for me.
Over the last 10 years, the big buzz has been the spring-like effect known as Coefficient of Restitution (COR). Coupled with head size getting to space-hopper proportion, the authorities decided to step in to limit what was possible. So COR is now limited to 0.830 and the maximum club head size to 460 cubic centimeters in an attempt to “maintain the challenge of the game.”
It’s now all about materials science, manufacturing tolerances and optimizing shape for maximum speed. Scientists have access to nanomaterials that are used in aerospace construction. Callaway just co-designed their latest offering with help from Boeing! Moveable weight systems coupled with variable lofts and lies means we can tweak our drivers to our heart’s content if an effort to optimize a high-launch, low-spin, straight drive. We now also have our own custom colors and decals.
Imagine what our drivers will look like in 30 years! Oh, and then there is the “frigging golf ball”, as Jack so eloquently put it, but that’s a whole ‘nother rant!
Opinion & Analysis
The 2 primary challenges golf equipment companies face

As the editor-in-chief of this website and an observer of the GolfWRX forums and other online golf equipment discourse for over a decade, I’m pretty well attuned to the grunts and grumbles of a significant portion of the golf equipment purchasing spectrum. And before you accuse me of lording above all in some digital ivory tower, I’d like to offer that I worked at golf courses (public and private) for years prior to picking up my pen, so I’m well-versed in the non-degenerate golf equipment consumers out there. I touched (green)grass (retail)!
Complaints about the ills of and related to the OEMs usually follow some version of: Product cycles are too short for real innovation, tour equipment isn’t the same as retail (which is largely not true, by the way), too much is invested in marketing and not enough in R&D, top staffer X hasn’t even put the new driver in play, so it’s obviously not superior to the previous generation, prices are too high, and on and on.
Without digging into the merits of any of these claims, which I believe are mostly red herrings, I’d like to bring into view of our rangefinder what I believe to be the two primary difficulties golf equipment companies face.
One: As Terry Koehler, back when he was the CEO of Ben Hogan, told me at the time of the Ft Worth irons launch, if you can’t regularly hit the golf ball in a coin-sized area in the middle of the face, there’s not a ton that iron technology can do for you. Now, this is less true now with respect to irons than when he said it, and is less and less true by degrees as the clubs get larger (utilities, fairways, hybrids, drivers), but there remains a great deal of golf equipment truth in that statement. Think about it — which is to say, in TL;DR fashion, get lessons from a qualified instructor who will teach you about the fundamentals of repeatable impact and how the golf swing works, not just offer band-aid fixes. If you can’t repeatably deliver the golf club to the golf ball in something resembling the manner it was designed for, how can you expect to be getting the most out of the club — put another way, the maximum value from your investment?
Similarly, game improvement equipment can only improve your game if you game it. In other words, get fit for the clubs you ought to be playing rather than filling the bag with the ones you wish you could hit or used to be able to hit. Of course, don’t do this if you don’t care about performance and just want to hit a forged blade while playing off an 18 handicap. That’s absolutely fine. There were plenty of members in clubs back in the day playing Hogan Apex or Mizuno MP-32 irons who had no business doing so from a ballstriking standpoint, but they enjoyed their look, feel, and complementary qualities to their Gatsby hats and cashmere sweaters. Do what brings you a measure of joy in this maddening game.
Now, the second issue. This is not a plea for non-conforming equipment; rather, it is a statement of fact. USGA/R&A limits on every facet of golf equipment are detrimental to golf equipment manufacturers. Sure, you know this, but do you think about it as it applies to almost every element of equipment? A 500cc driver would be inherently more forgiving than a 460cc, as one with a COR measurement in excess of 0.83. 50-inch shafts. Box grooves. And on and on.
Would fewer regulations be objectively bad for the game? Would this erode its soul? Fortunately, that’s beside the point of this exercise, which is merely to point out the facts. The fact, in this case, is that equipment restrictions and regulations are the slaughterbench of an abundance of innovation in the golf equipment space. Is this for the best? Well, now I’ve asked the question twice and might as well give a partial response, I guess my answer to that would be, “It depends on what type of golf you’re playing and who you’re playing it with.”
For my part, I don’t mind embarrassing myself with vintage blades and persimmons chasing after the quasi-spiritual elevation of a well-struck shot, but that’s just me. Plenty of folks don’t give a damn if their grooves are conforming. Plenty of folks think the folks in Liberty Corner ought to add a prison to the museum for such offences. And those are just a few of the considerations for the amateur game — which doesn’t get inside the gallery ropes of the pro game…
Different strokes in the game of golf, in my humble opinion.
Anyway, I believe equipment company engineers are genuinely trying to build better equipment year over year. The marketing departments are trying to find ways to make this equipment appeal to the broadest segment of the golf market possible. All of this against (1) the backdrop of — at least for now — firm product cycles. And golfers who, with their ~15 average handicap (men), for the most part, are not striping the golf ball like Tiger in his prime and seem to have less and less time year over year to practice and improve. (2) Regulations that massively restrict what they’re able to do…
That’s the landscape as I see it and the real headwinds for golf equipment companies. No doubt, there’s more I haven’t considered, but I think the previous is a better — and better faith — point of departure when formulating any serious commentary on the golf equipment world than some of the more cynical and conspiratorial takes I hear.
Agree? Disagree? Think I’m worthy of an Adam Hadwin-esque security guard tackle? Let me know in the comments.
@golfoncbs The infamous Adam Hadwin tackle ? #golf #fyp #canada #pgatour #adamhadwin ? Ghibli-style nostalgic waltz – MaSssuguMusic
Podcasts
Fore Love of Golf: Introducing a new club concept

Episode #16 brings us Cliff McKinney. Cliff is the founder of Old Charlie Golf Club, a new club, and concept, to be built in the Florida panhandle. The model is quite interesting and aims to make great, private golf more affordable. We hope you enjoy the show!
Opinion & Analysis
On Scottie Scheffler wondering ‘What’s the point of winning?’

Last week, I came across a reel from BBC Sport on Instagram featuring Scottie Scheffler speaking to the media ahead of The Open at Royal Portrush. In it, he shared that he often wonders what the point is of wanting to win tournaments so badly — especially when he knows, deep down, that it doesn’t lead to a truly fulfilling life.
View this post on Instagram
“Is it great to be able to win tournaments and to accomplish the things I have in the game of golf? Yeah, it brings tears to my eyes just to think about it because I’ve literally worked my entire life to be good at this sport,” Scheffler said. “To have that kind of sense of accomplishment, I think, is a pretty cool feeling. To get to live out your dreams is very special, but at the end of the day, I’m not out here to inspire the next generation of golfers. I’m not out here to inspire someone to be the best player in the world, because what’s the point?”
Ironically — or perhaps perfectly — he went on to win the claret jug.
That question — what’s the point of winning? — cuts straight to the heart of the human journey.
As someone who’s spent over two decades in the trenches of professional golf, and in deep study of the mental, emotional, and spiritual dimensions of the game, I see Scottie’s inner conflict as a sign of soul evolution in motion.
I came to golf late. I wasn’t a junior standout or college All-American. At 27, I left a steady corporate job to see if I could be on the PGA Tour starting as a 14-handicap, average-length hitter. Over the years, my journey has been defined less by trophies and more by the relentless effort to navigate the deeply inequitable and gated system of professional golf — an effort that ultimately turned inward and helped me evolve as both a golfer and a person.
One perspective that helped me make sense of this inner dissonance around competition and our culture’s tendency to overvalue winning is the idea of soul evolution.
The University of Virginia’s Division of Perceptual Studies has done extensive research on reincarnation, and Netflix’s Surviving Death (Episode 6) explores the topic, too. Whether you take it literally or metaphorically, the idea that we’re on a long arc of growth — from beginner to sage elder — offers a profound perspective.
If you accept the premise literally, then terms like “young soul” and “old soul” start to hold meaning. However, even if we set the word “soul” aside, it’s easy to see that different levels of life experience produce different worldviews.
Newer souls — or people in earlier stages of their development — may be curious and kind but still lack discernment or depth. There is a naivety, and they don’t yet question as deeply, tending to see things in black and white, partly because certainty feels safer than confronting the unknown.
As we gain more experience, we begin to experiment. We test limits. We chase extreme external goals — sometimes at the expense of health, relationships, or inner peace — still operating from hunger, ambition, and the fragility of the ego.
It’s a necessary stage, but often a turbulent and unfulfilling one.
David Duval fell off the map after reaching World No. 1. Bubba Watson had his own “Is this it?” moment with his caddie, Ted Scott, after winning the Masters.
In Aaron Rodgers: Enigma, reflecting on his 2011 Super Bowl win, Rodgers said:
“Now I’ve accomplished the only thing that I really, really wanted to do in my life. Now what? I was like, ‘Did I aim at the wrong thing? Did I spend too much time thinking about stuff that ultimately doesn’t give you true happiness?’”
Jim Carrey once said, “I think everybody should get rich and famous and do everything they ever dreamed of so they can see that it’s not the answer.”
Eventually, though, something shifts.
We begin to see in shades of gray. Winning, dominating, accumulating—these pursuits lose their shine. The rewards feel more fleeting. Living in a constant state of fight-or-flight makes us feel alive, yes, but not happy and joyful.
Compassion begins to replace ambition. Love, presence, and gratitude become more fulfilling than status, profits, or trophies. We crave balance over burnout. Collaboration over competition. Meaning over metrics.
Interestingly, if we zoom out, we can apply this same model to nations and cultures. Countries, like people, have a collective “soul stage” made up of the individuals within them.
Take the United States, for example. I’d place it as a mid-level soul: highly competitive and deeply driven, but still learning emotional maturity. Still uncomfortable with nuance. Still believing that more is always better. Despite its global wins, the U.S. currently ranks just 23rd in happiness (as of 2025). You might liken it to a gifted teenager—bold, eager, and ambitious, but angsty and still figuring out how to live well and in balance. As much as a parent wants to protect their child, sometimes the child has to make their own mistakes to truly grow.
So when Scottie Scheffler wonders what the point of winning is, I don’t see someone losing strength.
I see someone evolving.
He’s beginning to look beyond the leaderboard. Beyond metrics of success that carry a lower vibration. And yet, in a poetic twist, Scheffler did go on to win The Open. But that only reinforces the point: even at the pinnacle, the question remains. And if more of us in the golf and sports world — and in U.S. culture at large — started asking similar questions, we might discover that the more meaningful trophy isn’t about accumulating or beating others at all costs.
It’s about awakening and evolving to something more than winning could ever promise.
Christosterone
Sep 1, 2016 at 3:08 pm
This:
http://www.persimmongolfclubs.com/acatalog/JOE-ANDERSON-DISPLAY-CLUB.jpg
Wm
Aug 27, 2016 at 10:31 am
In the not too distant future they will be marketing customized one piece drivers where the head will be fused to the shaft. The marketers will claim more stability and better feel.
RAT
Aug 26, 2016 at 10:15 am
They should take the gloves off and let it be NO LIMITS on balls and clubs !
Tim
Aug 26, 2016 at 12:54 am
I would bet there are still some big changes coming the the shafts. They are going to give us shafts that flex and kick straight as the club face with tips that stay on line no matter how fast or had you hit the ball. I would bet we may even see shafts that have some kind of adjust ability for the amateur golfer to play around with…and then there will be lots of grip advancements with adjust ability in them also….lots of things to work on for the OEM’s to keep us buying the next hot new gimmick.
Chuck
Aug 25, 2016 at 9:49 pm
Others have already mentioned it; I am not so sure that the difference between a 2016 driver and a 2046 driver will be so dramatic, as the difference between a 1980 driver and a 2010 driver.
Just think about it; for 30 years — more, actually — tournament/tour golf saw virtually NO change in drivers. In the 1970’s and 80’s, the absolute rage among tour players and elite amateurs was to find very pure MacGregor drivers designed by player/designer Toney Penna from the 1950’s. Just about every major championship in golf for four decades was won with a persimmon driver that was generally about 20 years old. Jack Nicklaus was winning majors in the 1970’s with a 3-wood from the 1950’s. Players used to say that it was harder to find a good driver than it was to find a good wife. And once they found a gamer, they played with it until it broke. Then they got it repaired. And only after a club broke about three more times would they ever give up on it.
J.B.
Aug 25, 2016 at 8:09 pm
Materials since will dictate the future of clubs. With additive manufacturing, the face will be a graduated blend of materials to optimize the sweet spot to make the entire face respond at the edge of the rules. Clubs will stop being a head and a shaft, rather a single piece. The single piece clubs will be so well weighted and aero optimized that grandma will be showing 95+ mph swing speeds.
Professor smizzle
Aug 26, 2016 at 11:06 am
This man knows^^^^
The future is not development of the head, but of an entire one piece club optimised for each player.
mhendon
Aug 25, 2016 at 3:13 pm
I doubt I’ll be alive 30 years from now much less still playing.
Justin
Aug 25, 2016 at 1:22 pm
Technology is allowing more players to play the game effectively. I truly believe that more golfers could have competed on tour back in the day had the technology been better. The technology helps the bombers hit it straighter and helps everyone catch up to the pure ball strikers.
Id be happy if everything stayed the way it was. I can deal with guys like Justin Thomas carrying the ball 300+ yards in the air, but when you have 50+ guys on tour start to carry it the distance that Dustin, Bubba, and Rory do now…. that’s when we need to worry.
dsd
Aug 25, 2016 at 12:50 pm
just remember in the 200 years prior to the last 30 years club tech remained relatively unchanged. Similar to any industrial revolution, I don’t expect leaps and bounds of improvements over and over again.
Bruce Ferguson
Aug 25, 2016 at 12:44 pm
I would love to see new designs which would incorporate the dispersion/distance characteristics of today’s 460cc driver in a 360-400cc head. Whatever the future has in store, please don’t let it be even larger driver heads!
Tom
Aug 25, 2016 at 7:47 pm
M2 3 wood
Jnak97
Aug 27, 2016 at 1:08 am
Aeroburner mini driver
alfriday
Aug 25, 2016 at 12:41 pm
The last thirty or so years have been a transformative period in driver tech. I doubt the next thirty will go through anything nearly as drastic. The size of drivers has been limited. The spring effect has been limited. Newer, more exotic materials are available, but most are cost prohibitive. As companies push the envelop on the set performance limits, the changes will by necessity be less drastic.
The Real Swanson
Aug 25, 2016 at 12:39 pm
“Imagine what clubs looked like 30 years ago.” would be a more appropriate title.
Johnnylongballz
Aug 25, 2016 at 12:09 pm
Hopefully they don’t look that much different than today’s drivers. I hope that the USGA/R&A can limit technology’s impact on the game, maybe even roll it back a bit.
KJ
Aug 25, 2016 at 5:32 pm
C’mon now. Manufacturers are always going to be looking for something new, something different. It happens in every single industry with all products, Its called capitalism and the chase for the almighty dollar.