FORGET THE COMPETITION BALL, HOW ABOUT COMPETITION CLUBS?

[JMEvensky]

TEP,on the whole game vs. sport idea,I'm paddling my own canoe.I actually think this is an argument that makes more sense from a current perpective.I think a lot of people have different definitions of "game" and "sport" from those who didn't live in an ESPN world.

[TEPaul]

Jeff:

Sure, a lot of people have all kinds of different definitions for what golf as a game compared to golf as a sport means.

My point is that Behr completely developed what HE meant by all the differences between a game and a sport and they are truly fascinating differences which should be seriously considered, in my opinion. The problem is so many just seem to slough off Behr and what he said as the crazy ramblings of an eccentric who doubled his problem by writing in such an odd Edwardianly complex way as to be virtually not understandable.

He is very understandable if one just takes the time to consider carefully what he really did say.

[JMEvensky]

Jeff:

Sure, a lot of people have all kinds of different definitions for what golf as a game compared to golf as a sport means.

My point is that Behr completely developed what HE meant by all the differences between a game and a sport and they are truly fascinating differences which should be seriously considered, in my opinion. The problem is so many just seem to slough off Behr and what he said as the crazy ramblings of an eccentric who doubled his problem by writing in such an odd Edwardianly complex way as to be virtually not understandable.

He is very understandable if one just takes the time to consider carefully what he really did say.

It's not so much that I agree/disagree with Behr nor,for that matter,any other golf "philosopher".I just think that some important developments come after their writing.

At some point,the world changed--call it the rise of entitlement or me-too,or whatever.At some point,nobody had to "play right field" anymore.

In the world of sport,you just admitted that some guys were faster,stronger,had better hand to eye coordination.You dealt with it through admiration or jealousy--or you found a sport where your talents fit.You didn't look for a bigger baseball glove or ask that a basketball rim be made larger.You either practiced to get better or you just resigned yourself to being not as good as those who did.You didn't try to change the sport.

Golf got changed.

People who came to golf late,for whatever reason,found out very quickly just how hard it is.Guys who would find it obvious that a ~ 25-year old could never learn to hit a baseball or shoot a basketball,couldn't understand why they couldn't learn to hit a golf ball well.So,they got frustrated and pissed.But,because of business and social reasons,there wasn't another sport to play.So,they asked that the game be made easier through equipment,design,and maintenance.Et voila,here we are.

For the record,I realize that I'm well out of my depth on this.However,when I work out all the details,it's going to be one helluva thesis.

[Paul_Turner]

Garland

This is how they now test for the Spring Like Effect.  Measure the impulse time and then they must compute this number and convert to a COR for an impact with a USGA standard ball at a fixed club head speed (120mph)

U.S.G.A. Characteristic Time-New Test

USTA C.T. Machine
The method of measuring the SPRING LIKE EFFECT in a clubface, recently developed by the USGA is to use a pendulum on the end of which is a metal hemisphere which bounces against the clubface and the contact time relates directly to the SLE. The results of the conformance tests are used in determining conformity of the club head to the Rules of Golf,

Using the pendulum testing apparatus, a golf clubhead is impacted several times by a small steel pendulum. A characteristic time between the clubhead and pendulum is recorded for each impact. The characteristic time is directly related to the flexibility of the golf clubhead

The characteristic time of the clubhead shall not be greater than 239 µs. A maximum test tolerance of 18 µs is associated with this test. Therefore a maximum characteristic time of 257 us. or units, is allowed.

This test measures the response of a shafted golf club. If there is no shaft in the clubhead, one must be temporarily installed prior to testing.

The normal procedure calls for the measurement to be made at the face center, and is meant to replace the old coefficient of restitution method.

Here's the older "cannon" test to measure the COR where they used a Pinnacle as their standard ball:

In 1998, the United States Golf Association ("USGA") decided to regulate technological improvements through a liberal interpretation of Rule 4.1 of the Rules of Golf, as set forth by the USGA and the Royals and Ancient Club of Saint Andrews. The USGA determined that a golf club head having a coefficient of restitution ("COR") greater than 0.83, on a scale of 0.00 to 1.00, would be non-conforming under the Rules of Golf as a club head having a spring-like effect.

In order to determine the COR of a golf club head, the USGA devised a laboratory test that necessitates the removal of the shaft of a golf club. The test is conducted at the USGA testing laboratory requiring that a golf club be submitted to the USGA for conformance. The un-shafted golf club head is placed on a pedestal without securing the club head to the pedestal. A PINNACLE.RTM. Gold two-piece golf ball is fired at the face of the club head at 160 feet per second. The club head is knocked-off the pedestal, and the COR is measured by the rebound of the golf ball. A grid is established on the club face using the scorelines and etched vertical lines, further destroying the club and creating further uncertainties. The procedure is repeated at random sites on the grid on the face of the golf club until the point with the highest COR is determined from the test. The outbound velocity of the golf ball after impact with the face is determined using a light gate systems such as described in U.S. Pat. No. 5,682,230. A more detailed explanation of the test is provided at the USGA web site.

It is obvious to anyone skilled in the art that such a test is inapplicable to on-course testing, and requires a specific laboratory with skilled technicians to perform the test. Further, the "cannon test" results in destruction of the club. Yet further, the test is conducted on an unshafted club head, completely ignoring the shaft and grip. What is needed is a test that can be performed on course, with consistent repeatability, and minimal operator error.

[Chuck Brown]

Threads like this make me laugh...if you want to drive (no pun intended) more people form the game go ahead and roll back to difficult to hit irons and woods...and a ball that goes 250 yards when the BEST players hit it square...

Craig you appear to follow Wally Uihlein's theory that golf is an "aspirational" game.  That it is somehow essential to the growth of the game that average players feel that they will be able to constantly improve their performance through the purchase of ever-better equipment.

If we take the trajectory of the past 10 years as our cue, what we will see is rapidly-increasing performance by elite players, such that what we now recognize as classic and historic championship venues will be rendered obsolete for championship play.  The equipment manufacturers, unable to counter that fact, say, "But those are a handful of courses, used only by super-elites, and then only for one week a year.  Ordinary recreational golfers are not obsoleting anything." 

To which my response is, "Damn right.  The benefits to recreational golfers of much of modern technology are an illusion, mostly just 'aspiration,' and is mostly wasted on average golfers.  We ought to be able to craft single-standard equipment specifications, whether through ball technology, or club parameters, that regin in the technology-produced gains for elites over the past ten years.  What it takes, is some expertise, the will to do so, and determination to stand up to threatened litigation from the equipment manufacturers."

[Garland Bayley]

Well, Paul I forgot about the pendulum, but at least I remembered the steel part.
 

[TEPaul]

Jeff:

What exactly do you forsee this thesis you say you plan to write being about?

[JMEvensky]

Jeff:

What exactly do you forsee this thesis you say you plan to write being about?

Thesis is probably too formal.How about fact challenged,esoteric opinion?

I think that when the Reformed Church of Golf gained more congregants than the Orthodox, the game of golf started going in the wrong direction.

Indirectly,I kind of think your Big World Theory has allowed for some decisions which were beneficial to some but were inimical to the game itself.

I'm obviously still working out the details.And,yes I do live by the philosophy of "frequently wrong but never in doubt".