The evolution of golf driver heads has really come a long way in the past 25 years. They have evolved from wood to metal heads with space age materials and have grown in size like an athlete on steroids. The first 'metal woods' in the mid 80's picked up the name 'Pittsburgh Persimmon,' which was a real good and flattering name and really defined the new material used to make them.
The first metal woods were made at just about the same size as the wood drivers they replaced. Then the race to 'big' began and the heads started to grow like those over fertilized thousand pound plus pumpkins we see every year in the news at Halloween.
The big club manufacturers jumped on the bandwagon that bigger is better. Their marketing said that they could make the sweet spot bigger, you'd have more margin for error for better miss-hits, and all that and more will help you hit better shots and shoot lower scores. Metal woods also allowed the manufacturers to move the center of gravity around, putting it more out on toward the toe and higher up on the face to help the outside-to-in steep swing path golfers who hit it out on the toe and high on the face and who slice, hit more solid feeling shots. Metal is great for allowing them to manipulate the weight and design. But the big question is: has it all really been good for golfers and their game? The answer is yes and no.
As the woods got bigger, a few problems began to emerge. Aerodynamics came into play with the heads vibrating or wobbling approaching impact for high speed swingers, as stability and control is a must for solid and square contact. The manufacturers had to address this, just like plane builders and NASCAR has to do as stability and control is a must to avoid crashes. Then, as the heads got bigger and heavier, they had to find ways to make them lighter, especially when they started making the shafts longer. Their marketing was longer shafts hits longer drives. That is true only if the golfer can swing the longer club faster and hit it as solid and straight as a shorter one, which most amateurs and even professionals can't do consistently.
They shaved weigh by making the faces thinner and then we end up with the trampoline effect, where the faces now bowed inward with contact. The engineers I talk with tell me this is loosing energy transfer to the ball and thus affecting distance, as compared with the ball being compressed on a solid flat face. They also say that a face bowing inward can also affect direction and accuracy. And then the companies ended up with the big problem of these thinner faces cracking or crushing. With that, they have to replace the clubs of pros and amateurs, which I am sure runs into big bucks.
The manufacturers put million$ and million$ into marketing, saying, 'Bigger is better, longer, more forgiving because of a bigger sweet spot.' They got into the driver wars on Tour for who is 'NUMBER 1' because being the number1 driver on The PGA Tour would sell more clubs to the golfing public. Bigger sweet spots led into companies advertising that they now had multiple sweet spots on their drivers, with one saying it had as many as nine. And then this same company really went the distance and said that the entire face was a sweet spot. Drivers with adjustable weights came next, then adjustable face angles and interchangeable shafts. Many of these variable adjustments are good in that they allow golfers to test and adjust their driver and set it to where it works best for them.
Then the hammer fell on the manufacturers when the USGA ended the 'Bigger is Better' battle by limiting the size of driver heads to a maximum of 460cc's. The companies now have to come up with a new marketing campaign to keep sales going and golfers buying.
So, I will make my prediction that I have been saying for a couple of years now. Bigger is not better. Bigger heads with bigger faces in reality give a golfer more club face to miss the sweet spot farther and thus hit the ball worse. And this applies to irons as well.
I predict the new marketing campaigns will soon start selling 'smaller is better.' They will sing the praises that smaller is more aerodynamically stable. There is no vibration approaching impact and thus the club head is swinging faster and the stability assures a more solid and square to the line impact. They will say that the face can now be made thicker, which will end cracking or crushing the faces and is more stable for greater energy transfer to the ball for more distance and control. They may even scale back the length of the shafts, which would also be a bonus to helping golfers make better swings and hit better drives.
I predict the heads will shrink down to somewhere between 325 CC's to around 400 CC's. I will be surprised if they stay over 400 CC's and if they do it will be barely bigger than 400. They will not go back to the old Pittsburg Persimmon size, as size does matter. Too big as well as too small have negative effects and consequences. Like everything in life, finding the right balance and harmony is best for total performance. They will likely keep the good variables of adjustable weights, shafts and face angles, as these options sell clubs and at higher prices. And I am sure we will continue hearing that they have bigger sweet spots and more sweet spots and better and harder faces and so forth.
But what we will see for sure is the drivers of the future, and I am sure the future is coming soon to your pro shop and store, is drivers will be slimmer, but still glimmer in the sun light. The good news is that they will perform better, which means hitting better drives more solidly, longer and straighter. What a concept!
The Surge!