Clearly, the rules set upper and lower limits for equipment. If a ball falls within those limits, it is conforming. There are many balls on the conforming list that do not max out the limits for initial velocity and overall distance. The tour could have a "condition" limiting the balls used, but it is a bad idea. The manufacturer's lawyers would have a field day with restraint of trade suits on behalf of the players being paid to play distinctly different equipment. So it won't happen. Better to work with the USGA (and R&A) on this one.
I attended a conference yesterday at which USGA Sr. Technical Director Dick Rugge gave a presentation focussed on the ball and the challenges of addressing the ball issue. I think what follows is a fair summary:
1. Over ten years, players are hitting the ball, on average, about twenty yards farther. This conclusion is based on driving statistices provided by the tour.
2. Half of the distance increase came after the development of titanium headed drivers and the ability to manipulate COR.
3. There has been an increase of almost ten yards in the past two or three years as players switched en-masse to the solid ball. The biggest development in solid ball has been manufacturers' ability to regulate its hardness. There have been solid core distance balls for decades, but now they have the playability of the old wound/balata ball.
4. Athleticism, technique, mental training, the "Tiger effect (competition)," and huge money motivation all have a role in the distance increases, though those are hard to measure scientifically. Course conditioning may also contribute, but "not as much as you'd think." (I was surprised by that statement, having watched drives bounce and role 40 yards and more at many tour events htis year.)
5. The ball itself, when compared to those of ten years ago in scientifically controlled conditions, is about ten yards longer.
There are basically three tracks the USGA could take:
1. Modify existing rules. This is a tough challenge. The USGA (and R&A) is actively listening to representatives from throughout golf- manufacturers, tour players, the tour leadership, the PGA, scientific experts, etc. There is no single clear course. Rolling back the ball (in this scenario) means roling it back for everyone. Is Joe Average golfer willing to give up his perceived ten yard equipment gain? Is it right to require manufacturers to re-tool, perhaps give up a competitive edge? Does the scientific evidence really suggest the necessity of changing the rules?
2. Two sets of rules: Authorizing a lower speed "tour ball" is, in effect, recognizing a rules system with two standards- one for highly skilled players and one for everyone else. There are many issues. A.) Do we really want to cut the cord that links all golfers? That link is stronger in golf than in any other sport. All who want to play by the rules can play by the same set of rules. The tour is responsible in great part for the growth of golf; we risk damaging the ability to attract and retain new golfers if that cord is cut. B.) Adherence to the rules is voluntary. Why have a second set of rules if some people aren't going to follow them anyway? C.) How far should we go? Ban box grooves on tour? Allow 20 clubs for non-highly skilled players? What other changes should we consider, if we're going to make this one? If we change one rule for someone, somebody else will lobby for a different change. D.) The highly skilled/non-highly skilled argument was put out for public consumption during the COR debate, and it proved unpopular and unworkable.
3. Do nothing. Noone believes this is an option.
The USGA is studying and experimenting. Rugge and his staff and his committee rely on scientific evidence and consultation. Any new regulation will be based on three inputs- ball, club, and player.
One probable major change to the test procedure will be to increase clubhead speed in the testing protocall from 109mph to somewhere in the neighborhood of 120mph. This would effectively increase the ODS limit, not cause balls to fail the test.
Please note that these are my reflections on Rugge's presentation and may not be correct to the letter. I hope, however, that it gives readers a sense of where the USGA seems to be on the ball issue.