Will the USGA actually act?

[Jason Topp]

Report dated yesterday:

http://www.usga.org/news/2006/february/es.html
Some quotes:

Last April, we asked the ball manufacturers to participate in the project by developing and submitting to us reduced distance golf balls that would comply with an ODS of either 15 yards or 25 yards shorter than the current standard. All the major manufacturers agreed to participate.  Currently, we have received two sets of such balls.  We expect to receive at least seven more sets of balls within the next two months. We understand that creating new balls with playing characteristics that will be acceptable to today’s golfers takes time and we appreciate the thorough job ball manufacturers are doing in support of our research.

We will test all these balls in the Test Center.  Just as importantly, we will then evaluate the balls with real golfers of many different skill levels, from elite players to those with much slower swing speeds.  We want to determine the effects that such balls would have on how the game is played by golfers of all different skill levels.

. . .

 Indeed, while distance certainly remains an issue, it is part of a broader change in the way the game is being played, what some are describing as the “de-skilling” of the game at the elite level.  While discussion of this controversial topic has focused on the golf ball, it actually involves the interaction of all the other factors that are involved in hitting the ball:  


. . .

We also are mindful of something else in the Statement of Principles: that increased distance has other negative ramifications that we seek to avoid -- the lengthening and toughening of courses in response to increases in distance is costly and in many cases impossible.  It also has negative effects on environmental and ecological issues, on the costs of maintaining courses and on the pace of play as well.  

[Jason Topp]

Another research conclusion was that "Driving accuracy has ceased to be a factor in predicting success on the PGA Tour."

[SL_Solow]

Already some discussion in the "Ruination" thread.   Tom Paul provides analysis of the USGA position.

[jeffwarne]

wonder if they'll use laminated or persimmon in the test center.
Don't laugh,it was only a couple years ago they started using a non wooden driver in Iron Byron.


This time they really mean it though

[Mark Brown]

I imagine the golf companies will respond to request for two new, less lively balls to test. But when push comes to shove I think there will be a lot of resistance from Wally Uhlein at Titleist and some others.

[Jonathan McCord]

This topic may have been discussed on here earlier, however, I have been occupied as of late.

Did anyone else notice on USA Today, that the USGA just approved a, so called, NanoBall.  The company is out of Buffalo, New York and are selling these "balls" for $59.95 a dozen.  This seems a little counterproductive, if the USGA is also trying "rollback" the golf ball.

Here is the link to the website.

http://blogs.usatoday.com/maney/2005/12/have_yourself_a.html

[Doug Siebert]

Sounded like it was mostly more of the same, but this was interesting:

We have continued development of a turf impact tester for use on fairways and greens—to better understand the effects of course setup on player performance.  We hope to refine the tester this year and to use it to generate more data at our championship sites this year.

Will there now be a TEP rating for firmness of fairways and greens that, like stimp readings, will be something that ordinary courses will measure and aspire to?  That could be good if they decide F&F is the right way, or it could be bad, if the membership convinces them to maintain things in an eternally soft fashion so they can hold the greens more easily or in a misguided attempt to reduce driving distance through softer fairways.