Please take a moment to commend the manufacturers

[John_Conley]

And Bill, pardon my rudeness.  In my haste I neglected to answer your question.  YES!  You can buy.  The wheels of commerce on the train that is the economic engine of the melting pot that is the United States of America are at work, contrary to popular belief.

[redanman]

John

You must not read my other posts.


HELL YES EQUIPMENT IS BETTER! (Rmmember, I'm the mulitiply injured 50 yearold guy who hits it much further and straighter than when in his 20's.  Handicap is lower, too, BTW.)  

[John_Conley]

Bill:

I know how you feel, which is similar to how a lot of people feel.  Then why is it so hard to say The equipment makers HAVE made equipment better despite no changes to the laws of physics, no changes to the Overall Distance Standard for balls, and no changes the rules about length or size of golfclubs?

Read through others' posts and you'll see they get hung up on other issues like cost, the role of a company in a historically chummy industry, or something else.

All I said is that the clubmakers have found a way to improve their wares.  No new elements have been discovered on the periodic table.  No holes in the Theory of Relativity have come to light.  No changes to the rules.  Yet they have found a way to improve equipment.

A good question is, "Can they do anything in the next 10 years to continue the improvement?"  My guess is that they are butting against an absolute limitation.

(Separate discussion, but I echo the sentiment that it would be a positive to see a tighter rein on what is possible in golf and a rollback of the ODS and limitation to 300 cc or so for a clubhead.  Until that happens, I won't fault the club and ball makers for doing a good job of refining their products.)

[TEPaul]

Shivas:

You say IF distance was no longer a competitive advantage because.........all equipment was SADDLED with a REAL distance LIMIT...."

Yes, but, what I'm saying is that is one big collossal "IF"!

Who's going to SADDLE the manufacturers with a REAL distance LIMIT??

The regulatory bodies can try to saddle them with a REAL distance LIMIT but what happens if they don't want to be SADDLED with a REAL distance LIMIT!

That's my overriding concern here because if they don't want to be saddled with it they won't be and the fear is they will just ignore it and manufacture and distribute nonconforming equipment.

We all know that if the manufacturers wanted to be saddled with a distance limit everyone including the regulatory bodies would obviously get on board right now. I really don't think the USGA would have any problem at all with endorsing a rollback or another distance limit if the manufacturers would do it.

So I'm trying to figure out a way for a distance limit to be acceptable to the manufacturers. Selling a "relative distance" concept would be one way but I can't see how they could effectively do that. Selling an "absolute distance" concept is just so much easier for them to do--always has been--it's what they've been doing for years!

[John_Conley]

I'm gonna call that theoretical "absolute limitation" the Golf Speed of Light!!

[John_Conley]

Shiv & Tom:  Is there NOT a distance limit?  I know there is for balls, although you might not like the archaic methods used to measure.  Do I think the USGA could update?  Yes.  Do I think they don't have rules that govern how for a ball can go?  No.  In fact I'm sure of it.  How else could you have a ball outside the legal limit?

[TEPaul]

JohnC:

I don't know how many different ways to go over this issue. Yes there is an ODS limitation! Yes these new age balls conform to the USGA's ODS limitation at 109!! Yes people hit the ball harder than 109 and the USGA has apparently not factored that in much in the last 25 years of testing or to date!!

Were the old balata balls the tour players used to use at the 109 ODS limit? Possibly, possibly not! Do these new age balls the tour players now use go farther than the balatas they used to use when hit harder than 109? Yes they do and even possibly to an exponential degree!

That could be the problem John. In this way the manufacturers have outfoxed the USGA if not in the letter of the rules and regs at least in its spirit!

This was not suppose to happen!! How did it happen? Probably with very sophisticated technology and the fact that the pros used to use a ball that did not go anywhere near this far when hit hard!

You think you'd like to call the new limitation "golf's speed of light?"

How ironic that would be and technologically I wouldn't put anything past these manufacturers. What if they even produced something that exceeded the speed of light? How ironic would that be? If they did that it would serve them right! Do you know what happens John if something exceeds the speed of light?

[JohnV]

John, I was also going to say that there is a distance limit and that every ball out there meets that limit.  I'm tired of people saying something else.  Sure they can beat it with newer clubs/shafts/swings/launch angles, but then you are comparing apples to oranges.

Tom you have said that you think balls go exponentially further when hit with a faster swing speed.  I doubt that.  If we assume that all balls essentially go 280 + 6% allowed (296) at 109 MPH, the following shows how far they go at other speeds.

120      326.8
130      354

If you are correct the players today should be hitting it miles further than they are.

On Golf Talk Live, Charles Howell III said his swing speed was measured at 120 MPH.  Plus, he uses a graphite shaft and a big Titanium driver and I don't see him averaging anywhere near 326 yards (currently 289.6 yards)  Sure he hits it out there and further at times, but they also play on rock hard fairways a lot.

On the same show he said that Mike Piazza had his clubhead speed measure at 155 MPH.  Given that he should be able to hit one about 422 yards when he makes solid contact.  I doubt that.

Also, if the PGA Tour is anything like what I saw at the Senior PGA Tour, the numbers are inflated.  They measure from the back of the tee and the numbers they put on the fairway didn't match up with what the man next to me got using his Bushnell laser.

[TEPaul]

JohnV:

When I say there could be something exponential to these new age balls that's purely conjecture! And your distance stat figures are most definitely in line with your point, in my opinion.

However, there are two ways to look at the reality of this problem. I think most of these hard hitting pros would tell you that the old balatas did not go anywhere near as far when hit as hard as the new age balls even if the balatas were also at the ODS limit. Why is that since most would probably tell you too that the difference is not made up by the club or conditioning--at least not enough of the difference is?

Part of the answer may be because basically the new age balls are the old Pinnacles but made to feel like the old balatas to an amazing degree and that then just becomes the reality of what thy pros are using today vs what they used to use.

But of course there probably is an empirical way to find out which would be would the old pinnacle go as far as the new age ball when hit hard by the touring pros with the same impliments they use today?

[John_Conley]

Tom:

"I don't like the standard they use" does not equal "there is no standard".  John V. is right.  As for the "spirit" of the rule... that is very easy to apply in a closed envrionment like a household.  I'm thinking of disciplining children.  Outside of a small ring?  It is not fair to assume that everyone has the same views on what is right and wrong.

Let me borrow from one of my childhood heroes.  Nick Bockwinkel said, "I don't break any rules!  If the rule is that you can't choke someone with the ring rope and have to let go after three seconds, don't tell me I've broken any rule if I press their windpipe against it and let them up after two!"

Ray Stevens and Pat Patterson, however, favored a jump off the top rope.  BOMBS AWAY!, the move was called.  Keep in mind this was during an era where the A.W.A. banned high-flying maneuvers off the top rope.  (You New Yorkers remember "Superfly" Jimmy Snuka, but that W.W.W.F. stuff wouldn't have flown in the Midwest.)  Ray and Pat would take the opportunity to jump off the top rope when the referee's back was turned.  (Seems like the referee's back is ALWAYS turned!)  Their logic was that they couldn't be penalized if the infraction wasn't seen.  (For egregious offenses, tapes of the match were sent to Commissioner Stanley Blackburn in Texas.  You didn't want your match tape to go to Commissioner Blackburn!)

I contend there is a big difference between choking someone for two seconds with the rope and jumping off the top rope when the ref's back is turned.

The U.S.G.A. could do a better job spelling out the "intent" of their O.D.S. since I don't know what the "intent" is.  I'd rather see them implement a more meaningful standard to reach the desired effect.

[Will W]

LMAO!

the wrestling allusions are priceless.  me, i'm a ricky "the dragon" steamboat fan.

[Andy Hodson]

There's nothing like taking a bat to a wasp's nest, is there?

First off, balls are not necessarily going farther. The balls that now go the farthest are now soft enough to be played by players who require a ball to have feel and spin. And by experimenting with core sizes and dimple patterns, manufacturers have found out how to have optimum launch angles off the driver with low spin speeds, a perfect combination for distance, especially when combined with firm, fast fairways (a big contributor to distance and something most everyone here would agree is desirable in a golf course). And amazingly, these same balls when struck with lower swing speeds (i.e. short irons) produce optimum launch angles with higher spin rates.

So, the OEMs are making better equipment, esp. when it comes to golf balls. The problem with all this R&D is the cost is passed on to the consumer. And one other note about higher costs on equipment is that there is one little secret the OEMs (esp. the publicly traded ones) won't and don't discuss, and that is that with the stock-holder mandated shorter product cycles come the planned-for markdowns to blow out "outdated" inventory. The manufacturers jack up the price originally of "new" product so they still have room to make their margins when they (inevitably) have to mark down the product 9-12 months later.

[TEPaul]

JohnC:

If your last post to "Tom" was to me I have absolutely no idea what you were talking about. If I were to guess though I would assume you were making some allusion or analogies to possibly the USGA (regulatory bodies) disciplining cartoon charaters or children (the manufacturers) and working out this issue that way.

Oh well, it really doesn't matter if we don't remotely agree or even understand each other--I'm certain you and I aren't going to solve this distance issue so what does it matter?

[Dan Kelly]

Sign of the Impending Apocalypse:

Tom I writes: "[W]hat does it matter?"

Say it ain't so, Tom! (Cultural allusion to that famous Arnold Toynbee quotation: "Say it ain't so, Joe!")

[John_Conley]

Tom:

I've always described myself as tragically shallow.  My wife has never disagreed.  Yet I'm often astounded to meet people who lack at least a basic familiarity with pop culture.  I'm sorry the analogy missed the mark of my intended audience - you.

You are correct that casual hobbyists (you guys would not believe how I almost spelled hobbyists... I had to "preview" two times before I realized I wasn't even close   ) like you and me won't be able to enact sweeping reforms for golf anytime soon.  

It is my sincere hope that you had the pleasure of watching this evening's movie on The National Network.  The scene with the protagonists playing with the infrared lights in order to make the urinals automatically flush when they could have been watching Old Faithful, one of the Wonders of our Natural World, is priceless.

WW:

A lurker of GCA has just told me that his aunt or some relative actually LIVES with the Dragon!  Small world.

[Tim Weiman]

Tom Paul:

I continue to believe you struggle too much over the subject of enforcing new equipment standards.  You seem to want manufacturers to voluntarily impose controls on themselves rather then have the ruling bodies do it.

On previous occasions I've shared what I think is an appropriate analogy, specifically, EPA requirements for gasoline specifications.

The oil industry is producing a much cleaner product today because the ruling bodies forced them to do it.  On each occasion the rules were tightened to improve air quality, the industry moaned and groaned and said they could not meet the new EPA standards.  But, of course, they always found a way.  Oil company engineers figured it out.

With the golf industry, things are much easier.  They don't have to push the envelope on technology.  All they have to do is produce a product they have already demonstrated the ability to produce in the past.

In short, it is a no brainer.

The problem is that unlike the EPA, the USGA has failed to act.  

For the life of me I can't understand why you are worried about how the manufacturers will market "relative length".
What are you suggesting?  Are the marketing minds available to these companies so limited that they will not be able to adjust to a new regulatory environment?  Of course not.  They will find a way.  Don't worry about their moaning and groaning.  That's all posturing, nothing more.

[Dickie Wrist]

Golf equipment does perform better.  However, I don't think that point is particularly relevant, given the R&D budgets employed it should perform better and compared to the progress made in other mechanical areas it's not that impressive (c.f. diesal engines).

The real issue for me is the way that the golf manufacturers have exploited this new found performance.  While a few have acted with integrity, the general effort seems to be in using gains to challenge the stance of the USGA and the R&A and to try and push permissible limits to gain a market hold for their product.  Callaway obviously pushed this too far and ended up badgering the USGA into a concession because they went beyond permissible limits, and tried to use this 'recreational golf' nonsense to validate it.  What sort of precedence does that set for other manufacturers, they now have an insentive to push the rules because the USGA may decide that they too can have an extension?

At the end of the day commercial desires are being allowed to dictate to the golf authroities, having a profound effect on all golfers (including 'recreational golfers') who end up having to costantly upgrade their equipment to keep up, and to pay more money for greenfees as their courses are remodelled for 8,000yards+, and maintained at that length.

I don't think that this is a healthy situation.

Dickie

[TEPaul]

Tim:

When you say I struggle too much over enforcing new equipment standards, perhaps you're right.

Actually, I don't believe I've ever even proposed new equipment standards, although I have been musing for sometime now over what the manufacturers might have done to sort of outfox and skirt at least the spirit of the old (or present) equipment standards (ODS) which has been in existence and unchanged for some 25 years.

The present standards seemed to have worked well for quite some time but now things have apparently gotten out of control to a degree and if these new age balls actually conform to the ODS limit (present and 25 year old standards) then it's fascinating to surmise what's happened.

Some of us have been checking around with the authorities and some manufacturing entities and we think we've determined what has happened. In a nutshell the regulatory bodies have been taken advantage of--outfoxed, in my opinion.

And I don't believe I've ever suggested that the manufacturers voluntarily impose controls on themselves. I believe, as always, the USGA should control and monitor B&I and the manufacturers. But I also believe that today the manufacturers seem alarmingly or certainly potentially unwilling to be controlled and I do recognize that they have that option as compliance to USGA B&I standards is voluntary on their part. So I'm not saying the manufacturers should voluntarily impose controls on themselves just that you should recognize that it's voluntary on their part to have controls imposed on them.

You do make an analogy to the oil industry Tim, but I think you should recognize a very important difference between the EPA and the USGA and the oil manufacturers and the golf equipment manufacturers.

The EPA is a branch of the US Government and it happens to have the force of law behind it. The USGA does not! I know, as my golf club has just had to pay the the EPA a bit less than $1 million dollars. If my club decided to not play with conforming golf equipment there is not really a thing the USGA could or would do about it as playing with conforming or nonconforming equipment is also voluntary as it is for the manufacturers to make it and sell it.

So I'm certain you can see what I'm talking about and do worry about sometimes.

Dickie Wrist, and his post above seems to express many of the same concerns I do.

[A_Clay_Man]

David feherty made comment yesterday on the Memorial coverage about how the USGA and R&A are on the same page of a very boring book.

If this post doesn't prove that, nothing will.

[Jeff Fortson]

Mr. Weiman,

I think your analogy and feelings about the EPA and USGA are right on except for one small detail.  The EPA is a limb of the Federal government of the United States and can back themselves up with laws that force oil companies to conform or face being thrown in jail or shut down.  The USGA can only enforce their rules at their own tournaments and SUGGEST their rules be applied elsewhere.  If the manufacturers want to do their own thing the USGA can't throw Mark King, President of Taylor Made Adidas Golf, in jail.  

The best solution, which Tom Paul has hinted at, is to start discussions between the USGA and the manufactures so they can get on the same page.  The manufacturers need to be convinced that it will be good for their business to make products that would conform to any proposed USGA rules changes.  Without that, you will have a total mutiny of the rules.

I say if the manufacturers continue to push USGA Rules aside then the USGA should stick their neck out and continue to say that any equipment not conforming to the Rules of Golf should still be banned for competition or maybe even for general play as well.

Jeff F.

[Tim Weiman]

Tom Paul/Jeff Fortson:

If the USGA assumes they don't have the authority to regulate USGA events, we will never get anywhere.

I believe they do have such authority and should simply exercise it with appropriate notice/lead times to permit adjustments.

As for trying to impose any USGA standard beyond USGA events, I don't believe that is even worry of discussion.  It's just a diversion to make the problem seem more complicated than it really is.

[TEPaul]

Tim:

Of course the USGA has the authority to regulate USGA events--no one has ever said they didn't. They have absolute authority in all the rules over their thirteen events to be exact. Other local and regional associations and such will likely continue to follow their lead but all I'm saying is if the manufacturers begin to make and market nonconforming equipement (something they've really never done before) it will seriously complicate matters.

I don't know whether you serve on a regional golf association as I do but I can tell you it will seriously complicate matters if the manufacturers do that. As a golfer all one has to do is choose what to do but for a regional association it's going to create problems we really don't need if golfers choose to play nonconforming equipment.

All I want to do is see a more collaborative B&I rules and regs atmosphere created between the regulatory bodies and the manufacturers from here on out to so this won't happen with the manufacturers. I really don't think that approach or the reasons for it are hard to understand.

[Tim Weiman]

Tom,

Going back to my analogy, I think the oil industry experience with environmental regulations was "collaborative".  EPA set objectives (backed up by the force of law) and permitted an adequate comment period and lead time for implementation.

The industry provided all sorts of input to the process. For the most part, industry commentary was fairly analyzed and considered before the final rules were established and implemented.

I have yet to hear any reason why this can't be done with the golf industry.  After all, the issues are far less complicated from a technical point of view and require only a tiny fraction of the investment required to compared to the challenge of producing cleaner burning transportation fuels.

Tom, I don't serve on any regional boards, but can say from my general consulting experience that often people in an industry get locked into a certain mentality and can't break free of it until a outsider comes along with a totally different perspective.

My impression is that the golf industry is at that stage and is making the regulatory process more complicated than it needs to be.  That's the famous "victims of groupthink" syndrome that political analysts have written about.

I'm not anti manufacturer.  I just believe it is time to shut down the golf technology arms race and believe the manufacturers will never do it on their own.  Somebody at the USGA will have to do it.  Augusta National could make a contribution.  Maybe the PGA Tour could as well.

I say again, it's not that hard.  Follow the EPA regulatory model:

1) announce intention to roll back the ball
2) permit adequate comment period (180-365 days)
3) permit adequate lead time for implementation (1-2 years max)

Follow the Nike ad and "just do it".

The entire process could be completed in less than three years.

There's a way.  There is just not a will.

[JohnV]

Thought you might enjoy this from today's Santa Cruz Sentinal:

[Andy Hodson]

Great comic!

Isn't it interesting that all those things pictured (besides the bulldozer) also are designed to go straighter? Cavity back irons, better (less torqueing) graphite shafts, metal woods. Its been my contention that a major contributing factor to the increase in distance is the increase in accuracy, esp. with the golf balls. They now go freakin' straight as an arrow. Check out The Golf Channel and watch the Canadian Tour, or some other developmental tour and watch these young guys absolutely go at it with the driver. They have no fear of the ball curving off line. They may push or pull it, but the ball for the touring guys now doesn't curve half as much as it used to. Why not give it a full throttle rip at it? Of course that will continue as courses get longer and longer.