News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Jim Nugent

Geoff Shackelford printed a fascinating letter from Frank Hannigan about an issue near and dear the hearts of many on this discussion group.  Since many GCA-ers may not see Geoff's excellent site (geoffshackelford.com), I took the liberty of copying Frank's letter here...

"I was fascinated, if not encouraged, by the passionate arguments on your site after the recent blowing of smoke by USGA president Walter Driver on the subject of distance control.

The central point was missed.  Rolling back distance is not a technical issue.  It’s a political matter centering on the retention of position without annoyance or threats.  

Driver and his USGA know precisely what’s happened.  The average driving distance on the PGA Tour shot up 28 yards on average in 10 years.   The USGA wishes the clock would revert to 1994 so it could at least consider behaving correctly.  But it can’t even say so because that would be an admission it has bungled its most important duty.

Two distinct happenings accounted for the new yardage.  The first was the advent of excessive spring like effect in drivers in the mid 90s.  Everybody on the tour got 10 to 15 yards longer.

Then followed modifications to the ball that enabled the best players to pick up another 15 yards even though the new balls still conformed to the USGA’s critical overall distance standard test.

On spring-like effect, the Rules of Golf already said that clubs designed to produce that effect, akin to what you see with metal bats in amateur baseball, would not be acceptable.   There was no specificity however.  So the USGA Executive Committee in 1998 made a craven decision.

They correctly approved a new test to measure coefficient of restitution (COR) but instead of setting it at the level of the best metal drivers of the early 90s they chose to write the standard around what was already on the market.

Had the right thing been done there would have been hell to pay since a great number of existing drivers would have failed.  A prominent member of that executive committee later said to me, “We thought we were betting the franchise on that vote.”  He and others feared a rebellion by the owners of the springier drivers which would not then conform to the Rules of Golf.  But if you are billing yourself as the “governing body of golf” it follows that you will occasionally have to make unpopular decisions. For more than a decade the USGA has caved in the face of conflict, and by no means only on equipment.

When the longer flying balls came about the USGA was already equipped with a superb testing mechanism, an indoor device that, quite simply, can predict the outcome of any hit.

It was as clear as day that the changed balls were exceeding the intent of the distance tests.

Having capitulated on the driver, the USGA consistently bowed on the ball - announcing that no ball on its list of conforming products would be banned.  Instead, it went into its fake mode and changed the distance standard to accommodate the new and unexpected.

By the way, it’s ridiculous that the USGA should be held to a standard whereby its rules on  equipment have to foresee every conceivable change. The founding fathers of the nation did not anticipate that General Electric would poison the Hudson River, but GE is damn well going to have to pay for cleaning it up.              

Two points: 1. It was the USGA’s highest priority to put an absolute cap on added distance achieved by equipment changes while I worked at the USGA between 1961 and 1969; 2. Nobody HAS to play the USGA’s rules.   Its position should have been to reject the springy drivers and the longer flying balls while saying “We recognize golfers can go right on playing the other stuff but they may NOT  say they are then doing so under the USGA Rules of Golf.  Take your choice..."

                                            Part two continued in next post


Jim Nugent

Re:Frank Hannigan dissects the USGA's pathetic distance failures
« Reply #1 on: October 23, 2006, 07:48:14 AM »
Hannigan letter continued...

"Rolling back distance now can be done in any number of ways.  A simple alteration would be to say that as of January 1, 2008, the fail point for the overall distance standard would be 305 yards instead of 320 yards.   Assuming the PGA Tour accepted such a change (remember, nobody has to do what the USGA wants) driving distance on the Tour would drop immediately and considerably.

The people who now run the USGA are unlikely to come close to making such a change because they want to appear in ceremonies as rulers and get to hang out with Arnold Palmer.  The time has long past when the USGA could enlist for its executive committee citizens of consequence willing to actually take care of golf rather than amuse themselves with toys like a leased jet.

A new and shorter ball would surely be made.  But manufacturers might very well keep on producing today’s ball.

In the pro shops of the hallowed member owned clubs - Pine Valley, Cypress Point, The Country Club - the USGA would be backed to the hilt with notices that only the USGA approved balls would be tolerated on their courses.   Ah, but what about Wal-Mart?  Offered the chance, how many of the long balls might it sell, and at discounted prices to boot?

What would be the outcome on daily fee courses everywhere?  Might there be chaos with two distinctly different balls in play?   I think, and over a short time, the USGA would prevail because there is an internal drive for uniformity in equipment among golfers.  It’s akin to the monkey grip in babies. The USGA should be more than willing to bet the franchise but it will not.

There is a great irony in all this.   The modern equipment changes are enablers only for a tiny percentage of golfers.  You have to be very good to take advantage of added spring like effect.   The average golfer prefers to think otherwise, willing to hit his credit card for a $425 driver that does nothing for him or her.  You have to be a low handicap golfer to get the added juice--good enough to make the semi-finals in a club championship.

But even if I’m wrong so that the average golfer is getting a few more yards, if there was a rollback in distance the matter could be leveled out by putting the tee markers up a few yards.

The USGA has been allowed to stand pat because what has happened is akin to a victimless crime.

The PGA Tour, God knows, has not been harmed economically by the distance explosion.

The Tour exists only (forget the First Tee nonsense) to enrich its members and it has done so sensationally. The USGA, on the other hand, exists to define golf.

Accordingly, there is no pressure on the USGA to act honestly.

I do not blame the manufacturers.  They too have one purpose - make money for their owners.   Many are not tortured by brilliance.    When it comes to balls, one company, Acushnet, dominates the market.    The rest fight over slices of market share.  It would be in the best interest of every ball maker save Acushnet to jump all over a new ball, to start the game from scratch with ads proclaiming “our new ball is more like the old ball than X’s ball.”

The contributors to your site made much of the 2002 Statement of Principles issued jointly by the USGA and its partner in victimless crimes, the R&A of Scotland.  They proclaimed they would not tolerate any “significant” increase in distance. To clarify when they meant to clamp down they used the word “now.”

The very next year, 2003, witnessed an enormous increase in driving distance: 6.5 yards.

By any reasonable standard, that increase was “significant”.  It happened because the manufacturers were playing out the law of physics. They’d gone as far as they could go.  The USGA and R&A did nothing.

Driver has fallen back on saying that distance has been “nearly flat the last 3 years.”  He’s right, but all the horses have left the barns.    

I think stability is likely for some time.  In honesty, though, I must report that if someone had asked me in 1989, when I was managing the affairs of the USGA, if spring-like effect was likely to have an adverse consequence, I would have said “No chance.”

There has been no upside to the collapse of the USGA on distance.   Golf, as a recreational activity, has been flat nationally for a long time.    But in terms of being both artistic and competitive courses like the San Francisco Golf Club, Colonial and the Chicago Golf Club, they have become toys and museum pieces. I fear the same has happened at Shinnecock Hills which was tortured by the USGA at the 2004 U.S. Open in order to produce high scores.

Clubs that want to entertain big events have done what clubs from time immemorial have done when the ball was juiced. They have lengthened their courses significantly and sometimes comically (see the Old Course at St. Andrews which had a tee added on another course.)

As for new courses with thoughts of grandeur, the standard has jumped from 7,000 to 7,500 yards in a short time. That requires more real estate and increased maintenance costs.

The USGA, charged with protecting golf, has caused it to become more expensive.

The only way the fervent minority who care about the failure of the USGA could grow and become effective would be to mount a direct challenge to the USGA as it is.   That means ousting the current executive committee.  A revolt.

The USGA by-laws specify that any 20 USGA clubs, out of 10,000, can submit a slate of 15 to oppose the 15 nominated by the establishment.   (The number used to be 5 until I called attention to the by-laws a few years ago).  

The slogan for the slate should be “It’s the distance, stupid.” An actual ballot would have to be sent to all member clubs.  (Potential insurgents take note--the deadline for submitting a rump slate is Nov. 30.)

Internally, the USGA is a mess.  The Executive Committee, instead of intensely monitoring the work of the staff and establishing policy, is in a hands-on mico-managing mode.   They like to play at golf management and pretend that their presence is essential whereas, in truth, all they should be doing is read what’s sent to them and attend three meetings a year.

Would an effort to get this crowd out, however noble, succeed?    Not at first.  But it would scare the hell out of those who drool at the thought of traveling on the leased jet.  Above all, it would cause there to be a debate on the subject. The USGA has been more than effective in keeping its malfeasance quiet.

Shareholders revolts sometime work, even in non-profit entities.   The eastern division of the US Tennis Association, its largest, has had a splendid internal fight which has already reached the court and appeal stages.

Even the American Civil Liberties Union is in a quarrel on the issue of who should be on its board. If the ACLU can tolerate a touch of democracy, why can’t the USGA?"

Gary Slatter

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Frank Hannigan dissects the USGA's pathetic distance failures
« Reply #2 on: October 23, 2006, 01:05:23 PM »
At my club, Dick Wilson's Lucayan Country Club (1962), the distance from the back tee to clear all the fairway bunkers is usually 259 yards.  99% of our members couldn't do that in 1965, and their replacements still can't.   The club hosted a PGA Tour event in 1971/2 and it couldn't now, but the people who pay to play still enjoy the original course, with its 6 dog-leg left holes, 6 dog-leg right holes and 6 straight holes.  Wilson's Doral Blue, Bay Hill, Cog Hill have had to change their length for the one week per year they host the Tour, we didn't have to.  I think conditioning (players and fairways) has added more distance than science.
Gary Slatter
gary.slatter@raffles.com

Patrick_Mucci

Re:Frank Hannigan dissects the USGA's pathetic distance failures
« Reply #3 on: October 23, 2006, 03:53:13 PM »
Jim Nugent,

It's difficult to find fault with Frank Hannigan's position.

Architect's have also been decrying the distance issue as have many others.

Yet, nothing substantive has been done about it.

Like Obi Won Kanobi, Augusta appears to be our only hope.

TEPaul

Re:Frank Hannigan dissects the USGA's pathetic distance failures
« Reply #4 on: October 23, 2006, 04:41:26 PM »
Maybe while we're up in Far Hills revolting we could stone David Fay to death with some of the ProVx sample balls in the Tech Center and put Frank Hannigan back in as the Executive Director. Of course GeoffShac has to be the new president and I want to volunteer to chair the Amateur Status Committee so I can steal all kinds of neat merchandise and shit that players accepted before having their amateur status pulled and the merchandise confiscated.

Willie_Dow

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Frank Hannigan dissects the USGA's pathetic distance failures
« Reply #5 on: October 23, 2006, 05:03:48 PM »
What have we learned from the Ohio Golf Association, and their experiment using the OGA ball - made in Japan I believe ?

Greg Beaulieu

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Frank Hannigan dissects the USGA's pathetic distance failures
« Reply #6 on: October 23, 2006, 06:11:29 PM »
I don't know Frank Hannigan apart from what I have read of his writings, heard him say on television, and read what others have said about him. There is a consistency in all of this to me: he comes across as a sour, embittered, highly opinionated and inflexible man who thinks he should be running the USGA despite the lack of any particular reason as to why. I'm not convinced to change my position after reading this.

Patrick_Mucci

Re:Frank Hannigan dissects the USGA's pathetic distance failures
« Reply #7 on: October 23, 2006, 06:48:12 PM »
I don't know Frank Hannigan apart from what I have read of his writings, heard him say on television, and read what others have said about him. There is a consistency in all of this to me: he comes across as a sour, embittered, highly opinionated and inflexible man who thinks he should be running the USGA despite the lack of any particular reason as to why. I'm not convinced to change my position after reading this.

Greg,

Frank resigned as Executive Director of the USGA after many years of service to the organization.

He's amply qualified.

Is there anything in his presentation that you find flawed ?

Alfie

Re:Frank Hannigan dissects the USGA's pathetic distance failures
« Reply #8 on: October 23, 2006, 07:26:27 PM »
Thanks for posting Hannigan's comments Jim.

Well...Frank certainly got a lot of his chest there ! Don't know the man because the last time I tried to get in touch with him he must've been tucked up in Edinburgh Castle with the drawbridge firmly down ? Share views in the interests of the sport ? NO CHANCE !

As far as his comments are concerned - I couldn't agree more with what he's remonstrating. But as long as these "notables" in golfing circles continue to plough a lone furrow on the distance issue - then the more the USGA / R & A will feel they are in a comfort zone !

A revolt doesn't always have to be a bloody affair. I tried a few months back to enlist the support of a very famous golfer who shall remain nameless and who has spoken out against technology and distance issue's in the past. I got a very polite knockback.

My suggestion was - for someone who is respected internationally and with instant access to  many other famous people within the golfing world....to accumulate a considerable lobby and present their dissatisfaction to the USGA AND the R & A en mass ! Lone voices periodically ranting from the wilderness have proven worthless and ineffective.

Geoff Shac has a list of dissenters on his website, does he not ?

Frank Hannigan's personality has bugger all to do with it ! Either he makes valid points (for golf)...or he doesn't, according to each person's opinion.

In my opinion, he makes highly valid points on what I've been saying for years. It's not a game of golf any more - it's a game of bloody politics !

The SIMPLE solution remains with the ball. A rollback WOULD be good for both the sport and it's players, pro and am alike. Each and every golf hole that was ever designed has one common relative factor to each and another......YARDS ! The playing field of golf is about distance. The game thereafter is strokes. Mess up with the distance and you mess up the entire sport. Isn't that what's been happening for a century ?

I would agree with some on here who have noted that the genie is out of the bottle - but for equipment issue's only. Let the hackers' keep their $500 worth of scrap metal and the rest of the "forgiving" equipment available to them. Just give the masses a standardised ball that they wont even notice has changed and restore golf for all !

It might also reassure those up and coming golfing nations that the R & A are so enthusiastic about helping to  develop, that they need not worry about lengthening their nice new courses in five - ten years time because of further distance gains ?

Alfie.

Greg Beaulieu

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Frank Hannigan dissects the USGA's pathetic distance failures
« Reply #9 on: October 23, 2006, 08:11:02 PM »
Frank resigned as Executive Director of the USGA after many years of service to the organization.

He's amply qualified.

Is there anything in his presentation that you find flawed ?

Of course he's qualified. He ran the USGA for years. Then he resigned because he didn't like being an adminstrator, preferring to organize and run the Open and the other events that he could travel to on those leased jets.

I guess I just have a low tolerance for the kind of people who like to stay on the outside and take potshots at those who are actually working on running things. I know Hannigan likes to come across as curmudgeonly, but his rants and cynicism get tiresome in a hurry and come across as sour grapes expressed by one who still thinks he should be doing the job he walked away from, with the Board bowing at his feet. It looks awful on him, frankly.  

The distance issue, as Gary notes, only is contentious for the very best players. And even there, we have seen that there are ways to set up courses so that distance is largely negated without having to add lots of length. Should there be a tournament ball? Possibly so. Would it impact the the vast majority of golfers? Not in the slightest. But that is hardly a solid rationale for a palace revolt.

Patrick_Mucci

Re:Frank Hannigan dissects the USGA's pathetic distance failures
« Reply #10 on: October 23, 2006, 09:54:56 PM »
Greg,

I think a fallacy amongst many who lament the distance issue is the contention that it only affects a super small set of golfers.

I don't believe that's true.

Today's drivers, with huge club faces on longer, lighter shafts with minimal torque, allow virtually every golfer to swing harder and hit the ball farther.

I play with a number of fellows in their 70's and they hit the ball much farther than they did 20 years ago.  And, straighter as well.

I don't have a problem with that as most of the architectural features remain in play for them.

But, I also play with some fellows who are in their 20's and 30's and they hit the ball so far that it's amazing.

Almost all of the architectural features off the tee no longer affect them, and most par 5's are par 4's for them.

The distance issue is spread across the broad spectrum of golfers and may be weighted toward the younger as well as the better player.

A critical issue, one that Hannigan, Prichard and others clearly see, is the obsolescence of golf course architecture as evidenced by the individual features that were intended to interface with the golfer, that no longer do.

I don't think Hannigan has any asperations with respect to leading the USGA.  I don't think Geoff Shackelford does.  
Nor does Ron Prichard, Hale Irwin, Tom Doak and others, including myself.  But, we see what we perceive is a problem and voice our concerns in our own way.

Willie_Dow

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Frank Hannigan dissects the USGA's pathetic distance failures
« Reply #11 on: October 23, 2006, 10:41:28 PM »
Maybe it's because I'm such an inner/outer here, but we had quite a discussion going during the summer about the Ohio Golf Association, and its efforts to try an event with a ball that was under control.  Did I miss something, or was there a result ?  
It seems to apply here, on this thread !

Anthony Butler

  • Karma: +0/-0
I say off with their heads...
« Reply #12 on: October 24, 2006, 11:17:50 AM »
Greg,

I think a fallacy amongst many who lament the distance issue is the contention that it only affects a super small set of golfers.

I don't believe that's true.

Today's drivers, with huge club faces on longer, lighter shafts with minimal torque, allow virtually every golfer to swing harder and hit the ball farther.

I play with a number of fellows in their 70's and they hit the ball much farther than they did 20 years ago.  And, straighter as well.

I don't have a problem with that as most of the architectural features remain in play for them.

But, I also play with some fellows who are in their 20's and 30's and they hit the ball so far that it's amazing.

Almost all of the architectural features off the tee no longer affect them, and most par 5's are par 4's for them.

The distance issue is spread across the broad spectrum of golfers and may be weighted toward the younger as well as the better player.

A critical issue, one that Hannigan, Prichard and others clearly see, is the obsolescence of golf course architecture as evidenced by the individual features that were intended to interface with the golfer, that no longer do.

I don't think Hannigan has any asperations with respect to leading the USGA.  I don't think Geoff Shackelford does.  
Nor does Ron Prichard, Hale Irwin, Tom Doak and others, including myself.  But, we see what we perceive is a problem and voice our concerns in our own way.

Normally I think Patrick can be a little bit Chicken Little "the sky is falling" on this stuff but then again he probably hangs around with people who hit the ball just as long and straighter than I do...

This time Pat is correct in mentioning the larger group capable of consistently delivering the club squarely to the ball and hitting it in the middle of the clubface. No matter whether you swing at 90 or 120mph, that simple fact will deliver most, if not all, the benefits of equipment technology advancements. The proof is in the yardage that LPGA players are getting out of their equipment. It is not unusual to turn on the TV and see a 5'6" woman hitting a 4 iron 200yds.

There is no question that the USGA through their efforts to appease and accomodate the manufacturers has created an impossible situation for themselves...The USGA and their lackeys, however, seem more interested in attacking the character and motivations of former USGA executives criticising their strategy than actually fixing the problem.

Somehow that reminds me of another bunch of clueless white guys scratching their heads over how to put the genie back in the bottle.
Next!

Anthony Butler

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Frank Hannigan dissects the USGA's pathetic distance failures
« Reply #13 on: October 24, 2006, 11:19:45 AM »
Maybe it's because I'm such an inner/outer here, but we had quite a discussion going during the summer about the Ohio Golf Association, and its efforts to try an event with a ball that was under control.  Did I miss something, or was there a result ?  
It seems to apply here, on this thread !

there was a result... but it's not going to go much firther because the equipment manufacturers will resist any attempt to create seperate standards for competition equipment.
Next!

Garland Bayley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Frank Hannigan dissects the USGA's pathetic distance failures
« Reply #14 on: October 24, 2006, 12:42:06 PM »

there was a result...

Anthony,

What was the result? The primary conclusion I saw here was that they concluded that the ball issue was more complicated than they thought going in.
"I enjoy a course where the challenges are contained WITHIN it, and recovery is part of the game  not a course where the challenge is to stay ON it." Jeff Warne

Anthony Butler

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Frank Hannigan dissects the USGA's pathetic distance failures
« Reply #15 on: October 24, 2006, 11:30:52 PM »

there was a result...

Anthony,

What was the result? The primary conclusion I saw here was that they concluded that the ball issue was more complicated than they thought going in.


Some kid called Blake Sattler won the OGA Champions tournament shooting 134.... not sure on the overall quality of the field but I think he won by 7-8 shots. The ball was revealed to be a 3 piece Volvik Prospect Ball-playing around 70 compression. The ball was chosen because it did not give those with a 115-125 mph swing speed a disproportional advantage over people with 100mph SS like some other balls. There was a statement from the winner of the senior division that the only thing he noticed different about the ball was that it felt softer off the putter...
Next!

Doug Siebert

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Frank Hannigan dissects the USGA's pathetic distance failures
« Reply #16 on: October 25, 2006, 02:24:51 AM »
So there are plenty of people here who have connections in those old classic clubs of the type Hannigan is talking about that play differently with today's equipment or have been/are in danger of being modified in response.

So anyone going to take up his challenge to put up a slate in opposition to the current failed leadership at the USGA?  (If only it was this easy to replace our President and his cabinet)

I'd take either Hannigan or Shackleford for USGA President.  Hell, I'd even take TEPaul and Patrick Mucci for dual President, it'd still be a huge improvement over Walter Driver plus the meeting minutes would be hilarious to read ;)
My hovercraft is full of eels.

Willie_Dow

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Frank Hannigan dissects the USGA's pathetic distance failures
« Reply #17 on: October 25, 2006, 11:11:39 AM »
My golfing buddy from Ohio made a few other observations.  He mentioned that of the 30 to 40 Donald Ross courses in the state, a third of them are too short, and there is no additional land available to extend them.
The 74 players put up $175 each to participate in the event which included evaluations of several different brands of clubs, woods and irons.  I believe he said the maximum handicap for the players was two.  Jayson Kubick was the long hitter involved who drives with a 3 wood, and often hit that club 345 yards with the modern hot ball.
The comment made by the players was that the Volvik ball had a "workable" feature, not found on the new balls.  They responded to fades and draws, and would stay down - something the new balls cannot do.  The ball was tested by the USGA and found to conform to their specs.
I believe Hotstix did the satellite observations with their $10,000 investment in equipment for tracking various shots.

Adam Clayman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Frank Hannigan dissects the USGA's pathetic distance failures
« Reply #18 on: October 25, 2006, 11:26:25 AM »


Is there anything in his presentation that you find flawed ?

Frank's insinuation that the USGA tortured Shinnecock is, IMO, WRONG

"It's unbelievable how much you don't know about the game you've been playing your whole life." - Mickey Mantle

Bryan Izatt

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Frank Hannigan dissects the USGA's pathetic distance failures
« Reply #19 on: October 25, 2006, 01:11:52 PM »
Willie,

Re the Ohio experiment, Hotstix has provided some additional findings in their October newsletter at http://www.hotstixgolf.com/newsletters/oct06/

Their findings are summarized as follows: "In capturing data on hundreds of shots hit by dozens of players, I observed the following trends: short irons launched higher and spun less making them go farther and release on the greens; mid-irons spun comparable to most popular balls; and drivers were modestly shorter than current premium brands."  The modestly shorter part is explained as 4 - 6 yards.

In other words, from a technical standpoint it seems they learned that the Volvik ProsPect didn't make much difference in reducing distance, and had some unintended consequences on short iron play.  There is nothing about how, or if, the ball changed the balance of the competition between short and long hitters.  Or impacted in any way the players, short or long, interfaced with the architecture of the course.

From a political point of view they seemed to have proved they could run a "one tournament ball for all" competition without the USGA sanctioning them.

As TEP suggested some while ago they may also have been slapping the USGA across the face to get some action of scope of a tournament Committee's power.  Or just to get the USGA's attention.  No obvious outcome of that yet that I can see.

As a member at one of the classic courses that are negatively impacted by the distance issue, can you not see your club as one of the 20 that could potentially start the revolution?

Perhaps sadly, there don't seem to be even 20 clubs that feel that the distance issue is enough of an issue to take action.

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Frank Hannigan dissects the USGA's pathetic distance failures
« Reply #20 on: October 25, 2006, 01:56:31 PM »
because, ultimately it is the club that makes the decision to change its golf course. Noone is forcing any of these clubs to do something they would rather not because features are less significant.

Willie_Dow

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Frank Hannigan dissects the USGA's pathetic distance failures
« Reply #21 on: October 26, 2006, 08:46:04 PM »
Sorry Bryan, but my absense is a result of I've been trying to slow down my backswing!

You have indicated that the Ohio ball hasen't changed things.  

Do we need another experiment ?   Willie


Bryan Izatt

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Frank Hannigan dissects the USGA's pathetic distance failures
« Reply #22 on: October 27, 2006, 01:22:25 AM »
Willie,

I'd imagine that the wind and cold would help slow down your backswing at this time of year.

Do we need another experiment?  Not, if you mean a technology experiment.  I'm sure the USGA and places like Hotstix have lots of data about how all modern balls perform at vaying swing speeds.  No need to have tournament experiments to prove how any one of them plays in competition across a spectrum of players.  

Maybe an experiment with a real reduced distance ball such as the USGA has supposedly requested from the manufacturers might prove something.  But, then you probably don't need a tournament experiment to prove that such a ball goes less far and has some impact on how different players interact with a particular course.

For those who want to roll the ball back, you could do the sociologic experiment of getting the 20 clubs together and having a go at the current USGA establishment with the distance issue as the point of focus.

Or, how about a PGA Tour experiment.  Get one of the USGA's reduced distance prototype balls and use it in a "one uniform ball for all" Tour tournament on a classic course.  Try to come up with some measures of the impact (for example for Mucci: the number of architectural features interfaced with per round).  Play the tournament for real money.  Two rounds with the reduced distance ball.  Two rounds with their current balls.  Compare the rounds.  Might tell you something.  But then, would they ever do this experiment?    :-[

The real experiments that need to be done are the ones that the USGA presumably is doing.  What aspects and properties of the ball need to be measured and controlled to create an equitable distance reduction that can be rigorously regulated and enforced.  What seems self evident is that a shorter ball will affect how everone plays any golf course.  Will it advantage or disadvantage any particular players - who knows?  Will it protect classic courses from assaults on par by the elite players of this and future generations - who knows?

Jim Nugent

Re:Frank Hannigan dissects the USGA's pathetic distance failures
« Reply #23 on: October 27, 2006, 07:47:38 AM »
Bryan, from what I understand of ANGC, they could do some experiments there with rolled back balls and equipment, if they wanted.

They could invite any number of pro's to play the course several times or more in the off-season, with scaled-back equipment.  They might be able to try several types of rolled-back balls, clubheads and shafts.  

You guys with more experience can tell me if this next part is true, but I'm guessing they could set up the course more like Mac intended, in terms of rough, distance and perhaps even trees.  

Then see how the course plays.  

ANGC is ideal for this because of its short playing season, its big bankroll, and its prominent position in golf.  Tiger has said he wants to see skill brought back into the game.  If ANGC and Woods lined up together on this issue, maybe at last something would actually get done.  

I wonder if such a move would give an advantage to more of the older players?  The younger guys supposedly are more flogger types.  But the older ones grew up playing the shorter ball and older equipment,  and learning the skills they needed to succeed with that kind of setup.    

Glenn Spencer

Re:Frank Hannigan dissects the USGA's pathetic distance failures
« Reply #24 on: October 27, 2006, 09:25:53 AM »
If memory serves, Hannigan butchered his involvement with the Els ruling in 94, thought he should have been more direct, but outside of that, I find my self agreeing with most of what he has done or said, especially in this case. I liked seeing just how the USGA was talked into making the decisions that they did. I really miss golf, I just wish they would come up with a name for what we are playing now.