Thomas in the NY Times

[Jim_H]

Can someone more computer literate than I provide a link to the column by Frank Thomas in yesterday's (Sunday) NY Times?
I thought that it was well reasoned--and I especially agree with his observation that the laws of physics can't be amended, and that the beliefs that people have about increased yardage from technology are greatly exaggerated.  Of course, it suits the equipment companies well to make people believe that they can get substantially increased performance from equipment alone.

[Robert_Walker]

Frank Thomas:
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/22/sports/golf/22CLUB.html

not Hannigan

[Jim_H]

Sorry--I misread it.  I thought it was the old USGA guy, not the NY Times columnist!  It would make a more interesting case if it were Hannigan.  Oh well, the points are well taken--even if the authority is not.

[Rick Shefchik]

Thomas writes: "Even if Tiger thinks that players can gain 15 yards or more with improper drivers, the facts are that even if the U.S.G.A. had no limits on equipment, the laws of physics would prevent that. Even a relatively major infraction of the existing rule on the springlike effect will not deliver more than three or four more yards. Yes, golfers will get stronger and swing the club head faster, but we can't restrict this."

Well, then.

I, for one, am satisfied. If Frank Thomas -- who I'm sure knows the laws of physics better than I do, and perhaps almost as well as Shivas knows the laws of Illinois -- says the ball can't go any farther, what are we worrying about?

Our courses are safe.

In fact, we apparently live in the happiest of times -- a time in which you and I can buy more length in the pro shop, but the pros can't continue to tack on 7 yards per year. They're maxed out -- unless they want to try to get bigger, stronger and younger.

See? All those nervous Nellies complaining about the Haskell ball or steel shafts or titanium heads or three-piece technology have ultimately been proven wrong. There IS a limit on distance. We're almost there. Frank Thomas says so.

[Brad Klein]

I think it's a lot more alarming that Frank Thomas wrote it. Here's the guy who was testing equipment for the USGA for years, and he awakes from his dream-like sleep to pronounce, like Voltaire's Candide, that we live in the best of all possible worlds.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Brad Klein,

I agree with you.

When I read the article I thought it was written in a style akin to a politician surveying the current state of affairs from the perpsective of reflecting on and defending what occured under his watch during his previous term in office.

Arnold Palmer, Jack Nicklaus, Frank Stranahan and Mike Souchak were as physically fit, if not more physically fit, than the average player today.

Each year we're told that physics won't let the ball go farther, and every year, it goes farther.

Revisionist history..... Denial ......

[JakaB]

Tell ya what boys....this weekend I was lucky enough to be put on the Titleist swing computer that measures ball speed, spin rate and launch angle.   Without any change in equipment they were able to keep my ball speed and spin rate the same and adjust my launch angle through a combinination of teaching and weight shift to where I gained 20 yds off of the tee.   Now I got redanesque length to go with my rodanesque physique...it is a very good place to be.

[JohnV]

Brad,  Frank Thomas hasn't just popped out of the closet on this. I suggest that you go to his website http://www.franklygolf.com  He has lots of interesting information there.

One interesting quote is:

"If for some reason we can be convinced that the ball must be reduced in the distance that it can be hit by the pros then lets start by enforcing the existing rules and make sure that all clubs do not have a spring like effect. This will reduce the ball distance by at least 15 yards which is 8 yards less than they have gained in the last 30 years. We may also consider reducing the number of clubs the pros use to ten."

[Jim_H]

Sorry to have botched the identity of the author so badly--I guess I was having one of those moments when everything ran together on a Monday.  I do know the difference in the USGA's Hannigan and the USGA's Thomas (both former), but my brain did not function well.  That's the problem with doing anything from memory, when your memory is going.

[Martin Del Vecchio]

Frank Thomas says "Even a relatively major infraction of the existing rule on teh springlike effect will not deliver more than three or four more yards."

This should not be taken as a wholesale argument that technology has not led to increased distances.  He's just saying that the difference between a .830 COR driver and a .860 driver, all other things being equal, is about 5 yards.

He is not arguing that the Titleist Pro V1x doesn't go farther than the old Titleist Tour Balata 100.  He is not arguing that this year's .830 driver doesn't hit the ball farther than the original titanium drivers.  He is not arguing that the current PGA pros are no stranger or physically fit than their counterparts 20 years ago.

He's just saying that a minor increase in COR won't add more than five yards.

[JakaB]

Oops...my physique is reubenesque not rodanesque...but my point is that the advances in computerized teaching methods may have resulted in a large part of the increased modern distance.....when exactly were teaching pros able to measure ball speed, spin rate and launch angle...this is new..no....I really wish everyone could understand spin rate a little better because it is absolutely remarkable to see distance go up without an increase in ball speed.....Can you imagine an individual with talent like Els or Mickleson being dialed in to their optimum swing based on computerized data instantly returned without ever moving your feet....my god...an improvement of only 10% seems laughable with this technology and 10% is 30 yds......its not all in the plastic and steel.....these guys are being taught better than the guys of old.    

[ForkaB]

JakaB

I like "rodanesque" better.  I can just visualize you flying over a burning Tokyo causing mayhem wherever you go.....

[Willie_Dow]

Couldn't agree more with Hannigan, or whomever it was!   We need these comments to make our game move foreward.  The limit has been reached for now, but what comes next

[TEPaul]

In the years Thomas was the tech director of the USGA it probably wouldn't be all that hard to find out what he recommended to the USGA that they do about various things such as COR (and the potential advent of the new age ball) VS what they actually did do---or maybe it'd be more apt to say didn't do (that would be to not accept some of his recommendations). As far as COR was concerned Thomas's recommendation when the USGA became aware of increased COR of driver faces (more springlike effect) was to hold the line on conformity on B&I rules at the approximate COR of the old persimmon driver (app. .78-.79).

Again, it probably wouldn't be that hard to check the record on Thomas's recommendations. And if one does that blaming the increased distance of the ball today on Thomas becomes a matter of "killing the messenger". I'm not so sure about the statistics on the extent of the ball's distance increase during Frank's tenure and afterwards though.

[Ron Kern]

Delurking:

Tell ya what boys....this weekend I was lucky enough to be put on the Titleist swing computer that measures ball speed, spin rate and launch angle.   Without any change in equipment they were able to keep my ball speed and spin rate the same and adjust my launch angle through a combinination of teaching and weight shift to where I gained 20 yds off of the tee.   Now I got redanesque length to go with my rodanesque physique...it is a very good place to be.

Repeating myself from another thread:

Talking this week with a teaching pro that works with several tour players - he related the fact that club fitting has become more  than just a simple technical science.  The combination of shaft, head, swingweight, etc. and sophisticated swing analysis and the subsequent swing adjustments thereby gaining the optimum launch angle in combination with the new balls (esp Titleist) is providing tremendous gains in distance.  One of his "students" has gained nearly 30 yards the last two years.  Each manufacturer understands exactly what the combination is for the player to maximize the potential of their products and work very hard for their players to gain that advantage.


I played a round at a course that I designed, today - a practice round with a couple of club pro friends that will play in a qualifier for the state open there next week.  The course opened in 1995, I think.

Two years ago the fairway bunkers were in play - a very well struck shot could carry them and on some holes they pinched the fairway requiring a long tee shot to be accurate.  No more.  The bunkers, in many cases were no longer an obstacle.  My one friend made the comment that it looks like this course is obsolete.  We figured that the course played 2 to 3 clubs shorter than it did two years ago.  And, everybody was playing the Pro V* not the x nor the new Callaway Tour Hex, both of which are supposed to be longer.

Sure, it isn't obsolete for the recreational golfer, but the course has held events for club pros and amateurs over the years, which is good PR and it would be a shame if it couldn't continue to do so - but I suppose that there are many, many courses in the same boat.

8,000 (insert your own expletive here, if you care to) yards here we come.

PS - followed an excellent amateur for a couple of hole at Purgatory GC the other day, he plays out west in college - on #8, a 485 yard par four, slightly downhill, but against a decent breeze -> driver / PW, no problem...like John Hiatt says, "what do we do now, what do we do now, what do we do now."  Build more tees, I guess.

[TEPaul]

Ron:

Don't forget the underpants! If the golfer doesn't wear the exact correct underpants for the head, shaft, swing-weight and launch angle there'll be almost zero increase in distance!

[Jim_H]

Apropos JakaB's comments on his new swing, I read some comment that the most important new piece of equipment for increased distance is not the ball nor club, but the swing monitor, allowing the right instructor to get the swing and equipment syncronized.  Not much the USGA can do about that.

[Paul_Turner]

It's good that someone is being published with a rational, scientific, rather than hysterical, approach.  At least Thomas has made a good attempt at quantifying the various inputs from technology, and so separating these from human and course factors.

It's funny how some are willing to dismiss the laws/theories of science in particular fields, but trust them totally in others.