...
Changing the lofts on a wedge to get around the rules would be near impossible. You have to actually bend the loft, therefore making it more than allowed. But with a driver, you can change the effective loft by either opening or shutting the face. If you have a 12 degree driver with a 6 degree open face, the effective loft becomes 6 degrees. (The same thing happens today, just the reverse. Men have too much ego to play high lofted drivers, so they guy a 9.5, but fail to notice it has a 3 degree shut face, so the effective loft is 12.5. And that is true for those High Loft clubs that many make now. Those clubs have effecive lofts in the neighborhood of 15-18 degrees, but are stamped 13).
I tell you, I really believe the difference in distance is hyper-accurate club fitting practices that simply didn't exist in the past. The ball makes a difference. Shafts make a difference. Head technology makes a difference. Add them all together precisely and you have a large yardage gain.
There's a good bit of this that I agree with.
~As for lofts, and chekcing lofts: I think it is a simple matter to take a 58 degree wedge and bend it to 60. You've added 2 degrees of bounce in the process, so you might want to grind the sole a bit and add the lost weight in lead tape. Elite players, not currently faced with any loft restrictions, frequently bend their wedges strong, routinely to lessen the bounce angle; they are so good, they don't need the trouble-shot help that bounce affords. Bending a wedge, in and of itself is easy. I've bent every one of my gamer wedges for the last twenty years in some fashion. (Strong, flat, etc.)
~As for driver lofts, John has it exactly right. And the advantage of a 12 degree + driver loft rule might well extend to the elite players again. Elite players are routinely (not always, but routinely) looking for more open face angles, because they want to cut out the left side of the fairway and they don't need to fight a slice the way Joe Weekend does. Vijay has long been rumored to play a 10.5 degree driver that is six degree open. Vijay hates hooks.
~All of these loft rules may be easy to skirt, and are more in the way of hyper-technical nibbling around the edges of the ball issue. If there is general agreement that the balls are going too far (I am not presuming that), then let's please jsut address the ball. I really dread the notion of more technical rules on clubs, when some simple rules on balls would be better.
~Even if excessive length is not the direct result of the ball, "the ball" is still the easiest thing to regulate. Balls are what they are, and we all buy new ones every year.
~Which brings us to one of those things that John mentioned, 21st century launch-monitoring. And John is right, I think. There is some amazing and very helpful information to be gleaned from them.
But John, I put it to you.\: While it is simply amazing for a recreational player to go through that process, I think it may be less so for a tour player. I've always maintained that the best launch monitor is a tour pro. They see, and understand, what their ballflight is telling them. They have constant access to new stuff and testing opportunities. Launch monitors are chiefly helpful to them in terms of saving time, and swings, to figure out what is working best. If they ultimately get some yardage out of it, I won't argue too much with you.
But I still say this: We can't, and won't, "outlaw" launch monitor testing. We can't stop that activity any more than we can stop players from working out. And why should we? It is one of those areas in which I say, "the tour players do it, and if you want to keep up, Joe Weekend, you should too." I'd say the same for launch monitors. I look forward to the day when a Trackman costs $300 and not $30,000. I think anything that provides any level of player with more knowledge about the game is good. I'd encourage more players to save the money they'd spend on dozens of Pro V's and instead spend those dollars with a qualified professional and clubfitter. Like you.
So back to you John: Assuming, arguendo, that launch monitors and modern drivers are the cause of big distance gains, would you agree that the easiest thing to adjust is still the ball?
I think that precision fitting causes more distance gains for the elite players than many want to admit. True Temper has this thing called Shaft Lab (well, they did have it, they have more or less done away with it now) that can precisely fit a person to the exact shaft they need, flex down to a single cpm, launch angle, weight, and so forth. I knew a guy who had one of these in his shop. When he went out to the training class on it, two players from the Nationwide Tour were there being fitted. They each had swing speeds of 130 mph. They were both at the time using X-Stiff shafts. One of them was fitted into a XX-Stiff shaft and picked up about 5 yards of distance and gained some control (he was a fast tempo swinger). The other one was fitted for a "Senior" flex shaft. He thought the fitter was crazy, but was told to go hit a few balls and if it didn't work, they'd put whatever shaft he wanted in the club. He gained in the neighborhood of 25 yards per drive and lost no control (He was a very smooth swinger, like Couples of Els)
I agree, we can't outlaw launch monitor testing or precision clubfitting. I was just making a statement that without this technologically advanced fitting (which for the most part didn't exist 10-15 years ago) I think the distance increases based on the ball and other technological advances would be a bit less.
Now, as far as rolling the ball back, I am not sure how much it could do. There is certainly all ready a distance standard and velocity standard. But we know that balls react differently based on swing speeds. Lowering the distance standards and velocity will just make the companies find other ways to skirt the system. And you make the balls spin more, players will just go back to lower loft drivers. It used to be that nearly all companies made 7* 6.5* even 5.5* drivers. Now, those don't exist. Titleist is the only company I can think of that produces a driver with a stock loft of 7.5*, other than the long drive companies (Adams makes a 5.5* driver head, but only in its LDA line). So you go to a higher spin ball, you'll just see the return of the low lofts.
Yes, balls would likely be the easiest thing to regulate. But I am not certain how much difference it would make. Like I say, ball makes would still pour in the dollars to skirt the rules, such as they do now. And, as I have also said, players will just go back to lower loft drivers.
Its a very complex situation and I am not sure a regulation on one part of it would make a very big difference.