[Doug Siebert]

John,

I'm not really worried about equipment makers producing nonconforming equipment.  The USGA can't stop it, but I don't view it as a problem:

1) Most golfers already don't follow all USGA rules -- gimmes & preferred lies are good examples here.

2) Assuming most tournaments (i.e. small club level stuff, scrambles, etc.) require conforming equipment, it'll probably not help one's chances to play most of your rounds with different stuff.  Especially if it is a handicap tournament and your handicap is based on using nonconforming equipment that should in theory result in you getting a slightly lower handicap -- reverse sandbagging isn't a good way to win handicap tournaments!

3) Golfers who never play in tournaments and don't maintain a handicap are not a big factor in this anyway.  A few of the longer ones might hit a few houses with their 300 carry drives going wildly offline on courses not designed for them, but that happens today with with all wild long hitters, this will reign in the large majority of them (since the large majority of people capable of getting in the neighborhood of a 300 yard carry play tournaments and/or maintain handicaps, I'd wager)

4) No R&D money would be invested trying to make the illegal balls go longer.  They could right now today make a ball that's easily 50 yards longer (probably much more) if they decided to go nonconforming, so I think all they'd do is offer a "Coke Classic" ball that wouldn't be developed further for those with fragile egos who couldn't stand to give up a few yards for the good of the game.  Sales volumes would probably kill it off in 5 or 10 years as everyone eventually gives in.  Sort of like how Callaway didn't do a followon to the ERC judged illegal, nor did Ping do a followon to the irons with the grooves ruled illegal.

[TEPaul]

I think Pete Lavallee's last post has got it right. I keep reading these recent posts that are attempting to explain if recent distance increases, particularly above the old conformance test speed of 109 are linear, sublinear or superlinear. It really doesn't matter or I should say it really DIDN'T matter to the USGA/R&A before they went to their new test protocols AND their recent "Joint Statement of Principles".

Some on here even wonder why Frank Thomas and the USGA test center didn't use a series of swing speeds of 90, 100, 110, 120 or even 130 to test the conformance of golf balls. The answer is, and this is from Frank, that it didn't matter to them because at that time it didn't seem relevant.

The next question is, and one put to Frank, was why then did he pick a test conformance speed of 109mph? The answer is because all one really needs for a "pass/fail" distance conformance test is a speed to test at. Frank picked 109 as a logical choice because it seemed high enough way back then where if anyone was actually swinging faster than that it was so rare as to be statistically irrelevant or just plain irrelevant. (and friends and neighbors this may very well explain why the USGA basically invited Davis Love to come to the test center following his performance at the Walker Cup at PVGC in whatever that was 1988 or 1989). I was there, and I heard what some of those USGA officials were saying at that Walker Cup. You should have seen the looks on their faces! It sure looked to me like a collective wakeup call to what the future was about to bring. DLIII had his wrist all taped up, he pulled out of the US Am and apparently declined the USGA test center invitation to have his swing speed and distance results tested.

Along about this time Frank began to become concerned about the distance enhancing effects of COR in drivers!

Did that have any influence on the 109mph ball distance conformance test? No not really until it apparently started showing the effects once the USGA test center screwed a metal driver into Iron Byron's metal arm instead of a persimmon driver (Frank recommended to the USGA board to limit COR to the app level of a persimmon driver (app .079) but they did not accept his recommendations apparently).

Probably along about the same time (maybe early to middle 1990s) Frank started to become concerned that a new "super" ball with the soft feel of the high spinning three piece ball and the low spin rate of the two piece ball instead of the high spin rate of the soft balls all good players used at that time might become a reality and he warned the board about that (although there are board members who dispute that) but according to Frank the board wasn't that concerned about his warning on the distance enhancing effects of that either!

Frank then created the USGA "optimization test" (I'm sure most of us know what that was by now). That was to accomplish basically two things; 1. To help take the USGA up to speed in a testing sense of all the symbiotic relationships and effects of the various combinations of balls and clubs and swings etc, etc, with the goal of analyzing the distance effects of complete “optimization” that way. 2. To franchise out the USGA’s “optimization test” to the manufacturers so that everyone (USGA and manufacturers) could be more on the same page rather than having the USGA always REACTING to new combinations of technologies and what it all meant in a distance sense.

The USGA’s new “Optimization Test” was introduced by the USGA to a certain amount of fanfare (remember that on their webstite?), apparently the manufacturers really put their foot down about accepting the “optimization test” it was dropped as a test procedure by the USGA and franchised out to the manufacturers apparently. Shortly after that Frank was gone and replaced by Dick Rugge.

In the last three years the ball conformance test swing speed was increased to 120mph (obviously to get more realistic with the real world of tour players and strong players et al with COR, "super" balls, clubs, and the computerized optimization of it all) and the USGA/R&A came out with their “Joint Statement of Principles” which in essence says if distance increases from here ‘significantly’ or “meaningfully’ the USGA/R&A will do something about it regardless of WHAT is causing it (this includes balls, clubs, roll, and even the strength of the player----apparently they really mean ANYTHING AT ALL that increases distance!).

So it doesn’t really matter whether the distance increases in the last ten or so years have been linear, sub-linear, or super linear, they’re saying if it increases ‘significantly” or ‘meaningfully’ from here FOR ANY REASON they’re going to be doing some deeming of “Nonconforming”, as they’ve always had the ability to do.

Will they do that? And what does ‘significant’ and ‘meaning increase’ mean to them? Those appear to be the questions now.

The question of actually limiting the MINIMUM amount of spin rate on the ball to conform is certainly an interesting possibility that very well may bring things into some form of stabilization regarding distance. They’ve monitored spin rate but they have never put a limitation on the minimum amount of spin rate of the ball to conform.

Would an implemented rule and regulation on the minimum amount of spin rate of the ball to be an effective deterent to distance through it’s effects on trajectory and sideways motion of a ball hit around 120mph render “nonconforming” balls on the market today? You bet your life it would---probably almost all of them. So the USGA to attempt to implement something like that would have to go to their “Notice and Comment” procedure and give the manufacturers a fair enough amount of time (this is legal so as not to be sued for restraint of trade) to produce and market as well as a provision to grandfather all the balls that are out there today and basically let them take the effect of Gresham’s Law much the same way they did it with the “small ball” years ago.

At least that’s the way I read it all and see it now.  

[Brent Hutto]

Would an implemented rule and regulation on the minimum amount of spin rate of the ball to be an effective deterent to distance through it’s effects on trajectory and sideways motion of a ball hit around 120mph render “nonconforming” balls on the market today? You bet your life it would---probably almost all of them. So the USGA to attempt to implement something like that would have to go to their “Notice and Comment” procedure and give the manufacturers a fair enough amount of time (this is legal so as not to be sued for restraint of trade) to produce and market as well as a provision to grandfather all the balls that are out there today and basically let them take the effect of Gresham’s Law much the same way they did it with the “small ball” years ago.

Tom,

Your summary is well thought out, clearly stated and seems to be a fairly correct assessment of how we arrived at the 2005 status quo on golf ball testing. However, no matter how forcefully the USGA states its principles and no matter how eloquently you spell out what will happen at some point in the indefinite future the bottom line is I'll believe it when I see it.

In your final paragraph, which I quoted, you basically describe what could have been done several years ago when it was obvious that they had kept their head in the sand for about a decade too long. Now fifteen years after the big increases first started becoming noticable and five years after the distance explosion (at the highest levels of the game) became impossible to ignore they are promising that the day will come when they cry "Enough" and actually limit the performance of golf balls for the most powerful players.

I don't see what will be different in 2007 or 2008 (when players have grown accustomed to yet another ten yards of carry distance) to make it any easier to try and force a change than it would have been in 1999 or 2000 (ten yards shorter than where we are right now). Not that I think it's the end of the game or anything. The game has thrived on bigger changes than the three-piece Urethane golf ball. But right now the performance of a ProV1x for Ernie Els is better than any non-conforming ball that could have been constructed in 1995. You have to ask just what they're regulating when they keep "improving" the test yet performance keeps increasing beyond what was conceivable a decade earlier.

[TEPaul]

"However, no matter how forcefully the USGA states its principles and no matter how eloquently you spell out what will happen at some point in the indefinite future the bottom line is I'll believe it when I see it."

Brent:

No kidding! I'm with you pal!

For a few years now I've been concerned that one of these days the USGA/R&A is going to win the battle but lose the war!  

[Brent Hutto]

So far, the game of golf is still the winning side of the "war" between golf and technology. If both Old Tom Morris and Young Tom Paul are indeed playing the same game then the difference between Ben Hogan hitting balata with persimmon and Ernie Els hitting urethane with titanium is thinner than a fly's eyelash in comparison.

[TEPaul]

Brent:

Regarding your last two paragraphs I can understand your feelings but I've got to tell you that, in my opinion, you simply don't understand how the USGA/R&A works and has always worked, and perhaps even has to. Believe me, that's no knock on you whatsoever!

If one looks very carefully at the chain of events here---COR, new "super" ball (unexpected), old test procedures that stayed too long in relation to manufacturer innovation recently, concerns of legality and liability (necessities of the timing of notice and comment period, grandfathering balls or equipment and "Gresham's Law", coming up to speed on basically being "tricked" within their own I&B rules and regs and how to address that in the future, their new and fundamentally different position on distance "principles" etc----I think the USGA/R&A is probably right about on their usual schedule regarding how they've ever dealt with their major ball and equipment problems, or any major problems  throughout their history---eg haskel ball, steel shafts, Schnectedy putter, one size ball, stymie rule, unification of playing rules etc, etc.

I know what you're saying and what you feel---but this is just the way it goes. In this sense with the USGA's recent actions, I'm in total agreement with JohnV---eg please just give them the time and chance to do the right thing!

The difference today from the way it's been throughout their past dealings with these issues, in my opinion, is the manufacturers. Not that they haven't always been interested in progress and innovation and the increase in distance---they have been, ever since golf began in America. The real difference today, to me, is now the manufacturers are far more adverserial towards the USGA/R&A---I think they smell the time coming where and when they just don't need the USGA/R&A anymore! The thing that will determine that, as it always has, is the golfing public! Will the golfing public go with the USGA/R&A in the future as they have in the past? I don't know--it's so hard to say right now with all that's going on. Tennis thought they might 40 years ago and that just didn't happen. What's really different about golf from tennis in that vein? THAT, is precisely what all of us need to seriously concentrate on---like right now!

Is the USGA/R&A at a major crossroads right now? Probably!

[Doug Siebert]

TEPaul,

I remember reading an article about Iron Byron in Golf Digest or Golf Magazine like 20 years ago that said the 109 mph figure was chosen because that was what Byron Nelson's swing was measured at for his "normal" driver swing.  I don't think they were fooling anyone thinking that 109 mph was something especially rare.  But guys who swung at 119 mph or maybe even 129 mph for the George Bayers of the world weren't getting a significant advantage out of it because they usually couldn't do that and hit the fairways (or for the very rare cases that could, they couldn't putt)  Nowadays a guy swinging at only 109 mph probably couldn't make it on tour at all, even if he was the #1 ranked putter, length regardless of accuracy is too much of an advantage where U grooves and drop-n-stop trajectories in the hands of a pro make all but real spinach pretty irrelevant for any club less than a 6i.

My real concern about the USGA's "we'll let what's happened so far stay, but won't let anything further happen" strategy is that we might get into a situation where we gain a yard here, a yard there every year but it won't be enough to show up on the USGA's radar, but ten years of that will add up to make things even worse.  Plus, if Titleist came out with a Pro V2 that added 15 yards overnight and so definitely would get the USGA's attention, Titleist will fight them hard because they'll have already sunk their R&D into it, and have the drop on the competition for big profits like they did initially with the V1.  If they drew the line in the sand now via testing, Titleist wouldn't invest the money, and would have much less reason to get the sharks involved.  To be honest, I think it would be easier for the USGA to tell Titleist and everyone else "we're doing a rollback, here's how, we will require these balls in two years" because at least they wouldn't be killing a new product at intro.  That's really what the whole stink about the Ping Eye2 and ERC was about -- the USGA changing the games in the middle of the game after the R&D money is spent but before the profits can be rung up.

[TEPaul]

Just had an excellent conversation with the tech center. Numerous items of the evolution in the last ten or so years, technical questions of the past, present and perhaps future were answered and confirmed. Also a few things that are being discussed on possible technical procedures and effects, timing, perhaps some scenarios for timing on decision making and the procedures used were discussed. Interesting stuff and very similar to much of what's been supposed on here.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Doug Siebert,

You're correct about allowing for the recovery of R&D, etc., et..  That's why an incremental roll back might just benefit everyone.  

Distance didn't arrive overnight, it was a gradual, yet uneven process, perhaps a 5 or 10 year rollback program might be the most practical way to handle it from the USGA's, the golfer's and the Manufacturer's perspective.

It appears that both a grass roots and divergent interest movement is nearing critical mass on the distance issue.  What alarmed me was the apparent acceptance by the USGA of today's distances as the new "status quo".

The concept of recognizing that a problem exists, and adopting a philosophy that they will continue to let that problem exist, but they won't let it get any worse is patently insane.  What are they thinking ?  Who's thinking for them ?
Who's thinking ?

I've always felt that the revolving nature of the USGA's executive committee has been an impediment to continuity and resolve in dealing with the issue, which they seem to continue to not quite grasp.

[TEPaul]

"It appears that both a grass roots and divergent interest movement is nearing critical mass on the distance issue.  What alarmed me was the apparent acceptance by the USGA of today's distances as the new "status quo"."

An excellent point Pat!

I think you just might find that the answer lies in the fact that the very nature of the USGA and R&A has been throughout their existences one where they've always felt quite comfortable with the "status quo". If one looks at their histories one sees two organizations that have never been inclined to leap at progress and the future nor to return to the past either!  

Say "status quuuooooooo" 25 times very slowly! It's actually quite soothing and comforting!  

[Doug Siebert]

The more I think about this and discuss it and listen to others' opinions, the more I think the issue isn't even so much the actual distance as the way it is achieved.  It was quite a change going from the lower trajectory slow rising drives of the 80s to the new higher trajectory more-carry style driving of today.

If we just did a pure rollback of 5-10% across the board, keeping everything else the same, we'll still have lost part of the game that existed only 20 years ago.  Given a choice between rolling back to 1970 or whatever in terms of distance but preserving today's trajectory and keeping today's distances but bringing back the behavoir of the ball from 20 or 30 years ago in terms of trajectory, sidespin and how much the wind gets it, I'd take the latter.  It'd be much better for bringing out architectural variety as you can't just play the "hit it over everything" style.

The other side of the trajectory change was with the irons.  The whole "drop n stop" business with iron shots falling at a steeper angle than they used to (preserving stopping distances despite somewhat lower spin rates with the irons) had a really bad effect when used in combination with the U grooves that has rendered rough nearly impotent in the last years unless you are talking really nasty stuff where even top players are often reduced to playing the 100 yard wedge back into play.

So maybe the USGA dragging their feet hasn't been such a bad thing after all.  Specifically I mean that if I was given sole responsibility for equipment rules for the USGA and R&A even a year ago, I would have done a rollback by lowering the ODS by perhaps 10%.  While that would solve the problems of too much land use, it wouldn't solve a lot of the more important issues for GCA participants of devaluing architecture by making it far easier to just hit over stuff.  By taking their time, they can take better action than just subtracting x% of everyone's distance and keeping everything else the same.  That's assuming they take action of course.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

Previous actions/reactions by the USGA & R&A are understandable because, in the past, the incidences of occurance have been in minimal increments over long periods of time, whereas the recent changes have been in quantum leaps over a relatively short period of time, NOW requiring a different approach.

If you take a step back, as a disinterested party, why wouldn't you want a ball to perform to certain fixed standards, rather be subjected to ongoing juicing in the form of technology ?

If you want to do something "for the good of the game", you have to implement A policy for the "game" not vested interests.

Help us Obie Won KaHootie, you're our only hope.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()