[TEPaul]

Rich Goodale said:

"I measured 2 of the drives at about 320, and they were hit high, with not huge amounts of roll.  They were slightly downwind and down hill, but I would still guess a carry of 270-280.  Maybe it was the Guinness........The ball also seems to go as straight as any other.  No increase in shot dispersion, assuming that you hit it near the middle of the club...."

That statement is anything but scientific but I'm certainly not disputing it. But if that is true what's going on with B&I is then truly alarming because I have played with and seen Rich play and he isn't long altough certainly not short but there are about a good 25+ tournament amateurs right here in Philadelphia would can carry their drives a good 40+ yards past what I saw from Rich. I don't know what the hell is going on out there but it sounds a bit scary to me!!!

[TEPaul]

Matt Ward said:

"I hear what you're saying but I don't buy this belief that people wil line up and buy non-conforming balls. People want to emulate what they see on the tube from the world's best. As long as the professionals are using it then Joe Sixpack and Mary Wineglass will follow."

Matt:

I hear what you're saying too but I think you may be failing to realize that things just may not continue on the way they always have. Until recently manufacturers never would have considered challenging the authority of the two AMATEUR regulatory bodies the way they appear to be now. Callaway's blatant foray into non-conforming equipment was only the first crack in the situation to me. Maybe it didn't go over that well with the ERC2 driver but Callaway isn't some small "hot ball" manufacturer in Connecticut who produced non-conforming hot balls years ago---Callaway is a huge mega-player in the manufacturing world.

If and when the manufacturers decide to really challenge the regulatory bodies authority by marketing non-conforming equipment bigtime I can't imagine why the buying and golfing public would hold the line at the USGA's rules and regs. I can't see that even old-line supporters of the USGA have much respect for that body anymore on rules and regs with equipment. So why would the general golfing public care about their rules and regs if the major manufacturers offer them something else en masse?

And you say every Joe Sixpack and Mary Wineglass will follow what the professionals play with. Who said the professionals will ultimately play with equipment that conforms to the USGA rules and regs? Even Finchem has expressed disappointment in our present equipment regulatory bodies which as you know are only two amateur organizations!

[Jim_Kennedy]

Matt,
After talking to several other club Pros I've come to the conclusion that you could paint "ProV1392x" on the side of a Top-Flite and get away with it. Hmmmmm, not a bad idea.  

TEPaul,
I think you must start with Karsten Solheim. He challenged the USGA on a specific point of measurement and basically won. Although he didn't subsequently choose to go outside the limits of the B&I his actions showed others that the USGA's regs were assailable.
Having said that I don't think the manufacturers will push too far. I think they realize that without a USGA and an R&A their own existence is in jeopardy. The body of rules created over the last few centuries gives meaning to the game beyond the frivolous pastime of chasing a little white ball around pastureland.
Ignore the B&I and you throw out much more than the regulations pertaining to them, you also throw out any form of regulated competition. Throw out regulated competitions and you lose Tour golf, lose Tour golf and you lose a major marketing vehicle.
Club events would become a joke as players would soon be using Rodney Dangerfield or Rube Goldberg golfing devices turning the game into a silly endeavor that would ultimately become boring in the same way that 400 yd. drives with juiced up balls would.  

Do you believe that the manufacturers are going to pursue a line of attack that would eventually destroy the fatted calf? I doubt it.
 
Personally, I believe that no matter how much people like to villify them the Wally Uhleins of the world know how their bread gets buttered and who holds the butterknife.  

[TEPaul]

"Do you believe that the manufacturers are going to pursue a line of attack that would eventually destroy the fatted calf? I doubt it.
Personally, I believe that no matter how much people like to villify them the Wally Uhleins of the world know how their bread gets buttered and who holds the butterknife."

Jim Kennedy;

If you really believe that and the rest of what you said then you seem to feel that the regulartory bodies have a lot more leverage than a lot of people think they do and apparently than the regulatory bodies themselves think they do.

Do you really think the regulatory bodies wanted to see things come to this pass? Given all that Frank Thomas said in this thread do you really think ultimately the Eli Callaways and Wally Uihelins and Wall St dominated non-golf conglomerate CEOs really feel the way you say they do about the USGA rules and regs?  

I would seriously doubt that. I don't think they've thought past what the world of golf would be like without the USGA and R&A. But they probably will soon. What are they going to say then? "Oh sorry to have been so adverserial and to have pushed the envelope and the regulatory bodies the way we have for the last ten or more years."

What do you seriously think the regulatory bodies would be happier with--a ball that goes as far as it does in 2003 or one that goes as far as it did in 1976? There's no question in my mind which they'd prefer. And what about the manufacturers? Which would they'd be happier with?

If the regulatory bodies are as necessary to the manufacturers as you seem to assume the manufacturers think they are the USGA and R&A sure have a lot more leverage over the manufacturers then a lot of people seem to be aware of, including those who run the regulatory bodies---and if that's so then it's about high time they start using that leverage!

[ForkaB]

TEP

I am under no illusions that any one of your 25+ GAP Gorillas (or even Shivas, if he ever learns to hit the ball straight...)would do anything but expose my pitiful lack of length were we to play together.  All I wanted to say on this thread is that I, personally, as a player who probably does generate enough club speed to matter, do believe that the ProV1x does make a significant difference.  I'll know better 2 weeks from now after I have played it for several rounds at my "home" course and can make better comparisons.

As you say on another thread, distance is the "Jones" of the obsessed golfer.  Those soaring drives into the ether are what got us into the game, and what get our rocks off more than even holing out shots from the fairway.  I did both last week, and I'll take the vision of my tee ball continuing to climb into and seeming to hang forever in the clear Donegal sky over having my opponent calling out across the fairway to me "That f***er went into the bloody hole!", anyday.

Of course, Tom, as you well know, the name of the game if you want to score is playing within yourself.  Much as "smashball" or "launchball" can be fun, it is not particularly efficacious.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Tom,
I think the USGA has little "exposure" and would be found non-harmful towards the manufacturing business, if push came to shove. So yes, I think they have plenty of power in reserve.  
They have done an excellent job overall of balancing the needs of the many with the few especially in light of the fact that COR and ODS have little effect on the vast majority of golfers in the world.

Ely Callaway had an ego problem. If you look at Callaway co. today I think it's safe to say no Ely, no problem.

I don't find it unusual at all for business to be butting heads with regulators and I don't find it unusual for them to be pushing the envelope when they have the know-how.
It's been that way throughout.
Do I think the manufacturers have been flexing their muscles in hopes of intimidating the USGA? Yes, but I think the long term result will only mean a closer working relationship between the groups, separate agendas but less adversarial toward each other.


 

[TEPaul]

"....but I think the long term result will only mean a closer working relationship between the groups, separate agendas but less adversarial toward each other."

JimK;

I sure hope you're right about that but I am curious why you think that's going to happen.

[TEPaul]

By the way, WayneM and Bill Dow and I are planning on playing golf with Frank Thomas this coming Monday. I know I have some things I'd like to ask him but are there things any one else would like to recommend be asked of him? Questions like whether or not he's ever had some conflict of interest (which was a remark made on this thread) I don't consider to be remotely the type of question that's acceptable!

[JohnV]

Tom, just tell us which type of ball he is playing.  He never would answer that question when he worked for the USGA.

[A.G._Crockett]

Rich Goodale,
I think that you very possibly will find the the ProVIx DOES make a difference when you get to your home course, but it is a difference that you could have had all along by using a Pinnacle!  The x ball is basically a Pinnacle with a somewhat softer cover, and this is Thomas' point in the interview when he says that the ball technology is basically maxed out at this point.  All that is happening on tour is that the pros are now using Pinnacles too!

[ForkaB]

AG

I've played a few Pinnacles in my day (they tend to be the balls you find when venturing deep into the trees of gorse....).  None of them had the "hang time" of the ProV1x, nor does the regular ProV1, nor the Maxfli A10, or any other ball that I have played, at least to me.  Maybe I'm fantasizing (along with a lot of other people on this DG).....

[A.G._Crockett]

Rich,
In that case, I would suspect that you have stumbled onto a combination of driver loft, shaft, and ball type that put you at or near optimal launch conditions for your swing speed, because that ball is well within the ODS.  As for others on this DG, let's assume that this sample of the golfing population is either:
         a. most likely to experiment with equipment until they
             optimize combinations
         b. most likely to buy into "end of golf as we know it"
             scenarios, which currently involve the ProVIx.

[TEPaul]

Rich's golf game appears to have been technologically "optimized" without Rich even being aware of it. Perhaps Rich even sees it happening but with his high school existentialist bent figures it's only in his mind not really something happening in the real world outside himself. Maybe he even feels the ball and the club and their optimization is meaningless or even absurd in the same way he feels an architect and his architecture is essentially meaningless or even absurd. But if you can see it Rich, is it happening? Maybe--maybe not!

[Jim_Kennedy]

Tom,
I think this will happen because it must, for reasons of self preservation. Defang the ruling body and anarchy fills the void. Dislodge the ruling body from the sport and you have no sport. No sport, no sales.
Even if you theorize that existing players might stay with the game there would be little to attract new players. Eventually the numbers will drop through attrition and that's not good if your business is equipment. At best it would set golf back to the time when the various clubs all had their own rules at their own courses. The bickering which would come from this wouldn't do anything to entice the next generation of players to the game.

I'd ask Mr.Thomas if anyone from the USGA or the manufacturer's association ever proposed sitting down with each other and creating an equipment dialogue, especially after the Ping lawsuit, and if not, why?

[ForkaB]

Tom

I call it serendiptity (a word I learned in elementary school-- I'm regressing...).

BTW, since your swing speed hasn't exceeded 80mph since 1968, your participation in this discussion is very non-existential.

[Matt_Ward]

Tom Paul:

You raised the point about Tim Finchem getting involved with the debate on equipment. That's unlikely -- Finchem is no fool -- he's not going to piss off the mainstay equipment companies that have a major "investment" in the Tour with their marquee players who brand their equipment each and every week. He'd rather leave that glorious assignment to the USGA and R&A.

You also ask is it possible that Joe Sixpack and Mary Wineglass will buy just about anything? Sure -- anything is possible, but beyond the average Joe and Mary there is such a thing as peer pressure to play with what is conforming. People who play matches at various courses and clubs around the country want a consistent measuring stick and the USGA provides that (even when they screw up from time to time).

Frank Thomas correctly pointed out what needed to be done in several fronts but the USGA was slow to act. The issue about regulation of equipment comes from the lack of meaningful collaboration when "new" decisions are reached. Think of all the finger pointing and saber rattling prior to the 1998 press conference that took place before the start of the US Open at Olympic. You had Buzz Taylor on the cover of Golf World and all these Marine type barkings that the equipment companies are simply about $$ and could care less about the tradition and honor fo the game. Look, I'm not naive about the motivation of equipment companies (expanding market share is job 1) but when you insult people it's highly unlikely they will respond in a positive manner.

Frank Thomas stated to me people like Karsten Solheim and Ely Callaway were honorable people -- sure, there are those who are caught between "their heart and billfold," but there are people within the equipment industry who do care about the game and expanding it to "new customers" is certainly a laudable objective. Finding common ground is what real leaders in business & industry try to achieve to further any relationship.

Rulemaking needs to be an inclusive process. When it becomes a top-down dictum you invariably ensure a major amount of friction will take place. I have a healthy skepticism of people who simply view golf as a $$ enterprise, however, I also know that "blue bloods" who issue decrees from the castle are not immune from showing a desire to expand their communication skills in order to ensure long term benefits / rationality for the elite player and most especially Joe Sixpack and Mary Wineglass. A collaborative process works far better than a "us" versus "them" attitude one sees far too often.

P.S. I believe Frank plays the new ProV1x ball -- Tom, you probably can check for sure when you tee it up with him! I know he's using the new Titleist 983K driver.

[A.G._Crockett]

I think it is important to note that the Ping lawsuit was not about the USGA's authority to make and enforce rules.  Karsten Solheim's contention, as I remember it, was that the USGA had not followed its own regulations in measuring the distance between the grooves on the EyeII's.  I don't think Karsten ever alleged that the USGA didn't, or shouldn't, have rule-making authority for the game of golf.

[Jim_Kennedy]

A.G.,
It was slightly different than you remember. In 1981 a change in the rules allowed manufacturers to put square grooves in the clubface. This was to enhance manufacturability as trying to cast V-grooves had some problems not shared by square grooves. Solheim took advantage of the rule, making legal square-groove Pings from 1981 to 1985 and grabbing considerable market share from the old-line major manufacturers. It was then found that the square grooves were shredding golf-ball covers so he rounded the corners of the grooves by maybe .005". At that time the USGA rule said: "The width of the grooves shall not exceed 0.035" (0.9mm)... The distance between the edges of adjacent grooves must not be less than three times the width of a groove, and not less than  0.075" (1.9mm)."
Because there was no explicit rule for measuring "the distance between the edges" of rounded grooves, there was an honest difference of opinion between Karsten and the USGA. Karsten measured between the vertical walls of the groove. The USGA initially measured the flat surface, then came up with the 30-degree measurement rule after the fact. Karsten assumed the Eye 2 was legal, the USGA's 30-degree measurements said the Eye 2 was .005" out.

[A.G._Crockett]

Jim,
Thanks for the clarification and specifics.  That's what I meant to point out; Karsten didn't dispute the governing authority of the USGA, and the USGA didn't get sued because they made rules for the game.

[TEPaul]

Matt Ward said;

"You raised the point about Tim Finchem getting involved with the debate on equipment. That's unlikely -- Finchem is no fool -- he's not going to piss off the mainstay equipment companies that have a major "investment" in the Tour with their marquee players who brand their equipment each and every week. He'd rather leave that glorious assignment to the USGA and R&A.

Matt:

Then you must have missed Finchem's very public statement about his disappointment that the USGA and R&A were not reaching an agreement on COR and consequently if they didn't he thought the PGA Tour would have to or should step into the B&I rules and regs world.

Finchem also quite publicly retracted that first very public statement about a week later. I feel the reason he did that was he found out subsequent to making that first statement exactly what the PGA Tour had to do if they wanted to get into the B&I rules and regs world in golf.

Do you know what they'd have to do Matt? Are you aware of the committee that was set up following the PING/PGA Tour lawsuit settlement and apparently was something proposed and required by Karsten Solheim to effect the lawsuits settlememt? Do you know that committee is still in existence and if the PGA Tour wants to get into the B&I world they'd first have to basically get that committees permission first?

I agree that Finchem would probably logically not want to be in the B&I world but I wouldn't assume if I were you that Finchem, the PGA Tour and all its independent contractor tour players are just a bunch of yes men for the manufacturers.

Of course they all have necessary relationships and contracts but that shouldn't be looked at as a one way street. Obviously they need the manufacturers to some extent but it wouldn't surprise me one bit if the manufacturers needed Finchem, the PGA Tour and all its tour players a whole lot more!

Did you also know that the 2020 convocation about 3 years ago was floating the idea quiet seriously of a world commissioner for golf? Guess whose name was being floated? And if that was to come to pass someday soon where do you suppose that would leave the amateur regulatory bodies and their B&I rules and regulations?

The way all these relationships and responsibilities in golf have evolved over time and how they may eventually play out (and maybe sometime soon) are a lot more complex than just about anyone I know in golf seems to be aware of.

[TEPaul]

A.G. Crockett:

You're exactly right about the PING/USGA lawsuit. Solheim was in no way challenging the USGA's authority to make B&I rules and regs (as Eli Callaway appeared to be doing).

All Solheim was doing was seeking a B&I rule technical measurement clarification that dealt with the distance between grooves and from where that distance should be measured. The reason that happened is Karsten decided to "radius" the top, square and sharp edges of his grooves to correct the problem of the club stripping paint off golf balls.

The USGA said that the top of the radius on the club's face would be where the measurment would beginning thereby bringing the groove separation measurement too close together. Karsten disagreed with that and took the USGA to court for declaring his PING Eye2 non-conforming because of that. Karsten believed the beginning of the measurement between grooves should start at another point.

Some people actually thought PING invented box or square grooves but box or square grooves had been legal and in existence under USGA B&I rules for years.

[Matt_Ward]

Tom Paul:

As someone in the communications field just realize this -- Finchem is simply "positioning" himself with such a politically correct statement in which the Commissioner is "concerned" about what is happening and that they "may" step into the breach if nothing is done.

Tom, such a statement of "if" is no less than what someone said to me after I used the word "if" when a putt refused to drop. He said, "Matt -- if the queen had b*lls she'd be king."

Tom, I'm, well aware of the situation you described regarding the connection of the different parties relating to what the Tour has agreed to do and what Karsten Solheim included in its settlement between Ping and the Tour.

But, Finchem is not going to do anything that jeopardizes the Tour's standing. Filling the gap because the USGA and the R&A have fallen on the sword is not something that I believe Finchem wants any part of. If that happens it will come about because the other groups implore him to do something -- I don't see the USGA conceding it needs the Tour help anytime soon! I don't see proactive leadership from Finchem -- I see opportunism as the first credo.

Finchem wants to keep things smoothly as possible to keep the $$ coming in. His inability to take a proactive leadership position on the Augusta situation shows me a man whose main concern is the business of the Tour -- he's not interested in doing the "right" thing but more importantly what's "necessary." Nothing more -- nothing less.

[TEPaul]

As I mentioned we were going to do on post #33 we played golf this week with Frank Thomas (and his friend Valerie--a very fine Scottish amateur and just super nice person). We had a long and interesting discussion too during lunch about many things golf and architecture but Frank's description of the B&I world, his 26 years as the USGA technical director and what transpired was interesting and edifying.

Frank gave us his definition of COR, spring-like effect, the performance of golf balls, how energy transfer works between club and ball, the planned USGA optimization testing and what happened to it and how it all had been handled during his tenure with the USGA.

He also mentioned as a general remark that he really didn't see balls and impliment technology producing much more distance in the future--that in his opinion balls and impliments has just about maxed out for distance increase and is just about at the edge of the envelop now. (I'm sure this remark will create a good deal of dissenting opinion on here!)

He also mentioned that he certainly does feel that things in a distance context have gone too far. He menitoned his recommendation was to hold the "spring-like" effect of driver COR right at where the old persimmon drivers were--approximately .78 COR but the board of the USGA didn't do that. He also related the technical aspects of the "combined" ball but as mentioned in Matt's article in his interview with Frank they didn't seem to heed his warning on that either.

Frank appears to have a most interesting way of looking at the game--frankly a very purist attitude in a general sense and he certainly seems to be opposed to lengthening golf courses in a general sense if one isn't talking about tour pro setups I suppose.

PS:

He also talked about the Ping/USGA lawsuit and also the Ping/PGA Tour lawsuit and Karsten Solheim and what the whole "groove measurement" controversy was about that led to those lawsuits. His mention of his discussion with Karsten of how to measure grooves or groove displacement was fascinating and really sort of funny. He also mentioned, which I don't mind relating since it has to be public knowledge--which was Karsten actually sued Frank personally to the tune of $100 million dollars which with the treble damages clause could've amounted to $300 million dollars. That sounds like an awful lot more than just saber-rattling to me!

But it's pretty clear that golf ball and equipment manufacturing is big business and those fellows tend to play hard-ball. It also appears that he thinks, as I do, and many of us seem to that it isn't easy for the USGA to hold the line well in that atmosphere although there's no question that's what Frank believes they should've done anyway--and that now things have just gone too far.

We didn't really get into what he thinks they should do at this point and since he isn't there anymore I suppose that's just as well. But it's quite clear to me that if Frank Thomas had been the only one making technical rules and reg decisions at the USGA during his tenure as tech director the golf ball would not today be going as far as it is.

[Tom_Doak]

It seems to me the manufacturers would much rather the USGA rein in the ball and turn them loose on drivers.

What manufacturers really want is to sell more product.  If they can "improve" the driver every year to hit it two yards further, they can sell a bunch of them for $495 each.

But it seems to me that no matter what they do to the golf ball, at the end of the year, they're going to sell (as an industry) the exact same number of golf balls.  Aren't they?  They're just wrestling over market share within the USGA guidelines on golf balls, and changing those guidelines would have no effect on how many balls were ultimately sold.

That should be the USGA's defense against an anti-trust suit.

[TEPaul]

Tom Doak:

That could be the single most logical thing I've heard on this website on the distance issue and balls and impliments period. But I'm not real sure how much the manufacturing world would want the golfing public to look at things that logically.

However, even that does presuppose a few important things such as the manufacturers and the golfing public's inclination to continue to work within, and buy within the USGA's present and future B&I rules and regs guidelines.

Frank Thomas did say in no uncertain terms that the USGA is simply an organization that does no more than ask anyone--both manufacturers and golfers to VOLUNTARILY comply with their guidelines. If anyone does not choose to do that there isn't really a thing that the USGA will or can do about it. And consequently, as Thomas confirmed, that's unquestionably their single best and most effective defense in any lawsuit!

Frank did say that he felt technology had about maxed out in B&I but I did not exactly ask him if by that he meant only within the USGA's B&I rules and regs guidelines or generally even outside of them. I'd have to think it had to be the former and not the latter though. If the sky was the limit technologically with absolutely no restrictions whatsoever I can't imagine that they couldn't find various ways of creating balls or even impliments that would have great distance enhancing potential even from here.

But assuming they all stay with the guidelines your recommendation is completely logical--probably even too logical. The reason being that leaving the manufacturers with basically only the Impliments side to lie about and propagandize about probably wouldn't seem like enough to them.

Both ball and impliments certainly is about market share and the manufacturers probably would prefer to have two things to use for their persuasive marketing campaigns instead of just one.

Marketing and advertizing is obviously what most all of this is about anyway--don't you think?

If they stay within the B&I rules and regs limitations it probably isn't that much different from Coke and Pepsi. Everyone in the world knows what they both taste like and neither company is going to change their proven receipe so it just basically boils down to marketing and advertizing and market share.

Who knows though--last year Lynn Shackelford showed up on the East Coast and asked a bunch of clubs if he could have a Dr. Pepper and not a single East Coast club stocked it and a few waitress didn't even seem to know what he was talking about.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()