It's about time that the USGA starts to 'get it' about technology ruining the game of golf and, of course, classical golf architecture.
The following is from today's Wall Street Journal.
------------
Are Golfers Too Good?
Sport's Association Asks
Equipment Makers to Limit
How Far a Ball Will Fly
By CONOR DOUGHERTY
Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
April 14, 2005; Page B1
The search is under way for a more sluggish golf ball.
In a small victory for golf traditionalists who think the game has been threatened by high-performance gear, the United States Golf Association is asking manufacturers for prototype balls that fly shorter distances than those currently allowed.
The request, sent by letter to golf-equipment manufacturers on Monday, does not signal a rule change yet, but is part of what the USGA describes as ongoing research to better understand golf-ball technology "if the need to change the rules arises."
The letter, which was delivered to about 35 manufacturers, including Nike Golf, TaylorMade Golf, and Callaway Golf Co., asks makers to submit two golf-ball designs -- one that would land 25 yards shorter on average than the USGA's current standard, and another that would fall 15 yards shorter. The letter says participation is voluntary and does not set a timetable for submitting the prototypes.
Until about 2000, most players used liquid-filled wound golf balls that didn't fly as far but were soft and easy to control. Today, balls have a solid core and an urethane cover, allowing them to fly longer distances.
What's wrong with driving balls further? While most players welcome lower scores, course owners object that their courses risk looking outdated when they are easier to play.
Tiger Woods tees off at the Masters Golf Tournament last week.
A few course operators have lengthened their fairways to make them more challenging, but players and enthusiasts feel that golf courses are works of art, so modifying a course is like reworking the architecture on a famous building so it can fit more people. In addition, most amateur players can't hit the ball as far as a pro -- making golf no longer fun. Former PGA Tour Commissioner Deane Beman says courses that have been lengthened to accommodate tour players are "torture chambers" for average golfers.
Traditionalists, including golf luminaries Jack Nicklaus and Greg Norman, have pushed for limits on golf equipment for years. Some classic courses, such as Augusta National, host of last weekend's Masters Tournament, have also called for technological restrictions.
Not surprisingly, golf manufacturers, who spend millions annually to research and develop better equipment, are resisting restrictions. Dick Rugge, the USGA's senior technical director and author of the letter to manufacturers, said one of the 35 companies, which he declined to name, agreed to work with the USGA. Nike Golf and TaylorMade Golf spokesmen confirmed they received the letter but hadn't yet responded to the USGA.
As it is, the sport has struggled to keep golfers playing -- the number of rounds played in the U.S. was 494.9 million in 2003, down from a peak of 518.4 million in 2000, according to the National Golf Foundation.
Advancing technology has been an issue in many sports in recent years. Last year, the U.S. governing body for track and field banned Spira Footwear, an El Paso, Texas, company that makes athletic shoes with spring technology. But in skiing, better-performing skis with a parabola shape instead of the traditional, straight design, have been embraced as a way to keep older skiers on the slopes and making it easier for newcomers to learn.
Making golf balls deader, if it happens at all, would be several years off. And golfers and golf equipment-makers don't have to comply with the USGA. The volunteer-run organization, which was formed in 1894 and together with the Royal and Ancient Golf Club of St. Andrews in Scotland sets guidelines for golfers around the world, has no power to enforce its rules except at its own tournaments, such as the U.S. Open.
Still, golfers follow USGA guidelines to set handicaps and for most competitions. As a result, manufacturers generally do not release products without the blessing from the ruling body. In 2000, Callaway Golf in Carlsbad, Calif., went against the grain when it released its ERC II driver club, which the USGA had declared "nonconforming." Golfers shunned the club and Callaway stopped selling them in the U.S. a year later.
The USGA has taken a more activist stance on equipment advances in recent years. In 1998, the organization implemented a limit on the amount of "spring-like effect" allowed on the face of drivers, effectively placing a cap on driver distance. Since then, the organization has put caps on the size of club heads, the length of clubs and updated its method for testing ball distance. For instance, the test is now conducted with faster-swinging clubs and a titanium driver instead of a wood one.
Companies such as Callaway Golf have asked the USGA to consider allowing separate technologies for pros and everyday golfers, which would make the sport more accessible to recreational players, but keep stricter standards for professionals. But that would amount to a break from golf's long tradition of maintaining the same rules for all players. It would also present a marketing conundrum for golf companies, which have long sold their products based on endorsements from professionals who use the equipment in competition.
Also, in a sport where everyone from Tiger Woods to club champions to low-handicap gardener can try out for the U.S. Open, at what level of competition would the technology line be drawn?
The conflict heated up earlier this year when former PGA Tour Commissioner Beman sent an open letter to USGA President Fred Ridley challenging the USGA to take a stronger role in limiting golf-equipment technology. In an interview yesterday, Mr. Beman said he was "absolutely delighted" with the USGA's call for research into a shorter golf ball.
Write to Conor Dougherty at conor.dougherty@wsj.com