USGA Museum not to move to NYC

[A_Clay_Man]

Flat earth society? is that what they call Florida golf?

With life expectancy number's on the rise Patrick, you are the one out of touch. Science, but most importantly man's adaptability have shown life expectancy appraoching 200 yrs. in this millenium.

Plus, you give no credit to the increase in knowledge of the physics behind the golf swing. Add to that the dumbing down of courses, to fit the masses, standardized maintenance with perfect lies, and you have lower scores. Whats wrong with lower scores? It takes nothing away from the past players and if plotted on a graph should show a major trendline that will/should continue. You can fight the trend but it's a waste of time. In market terms the trend is your friend and those that fight it, are lucky to still show-up for work in the morning.

[Patrick_Mucci]

A Clayman,

The physics behind the golf swing haven't changed in 100 years, nor will they change in 1,000 years.

Mass X Velocity =

What has changed is the technology.

Swinging a solid wooden driver clubhead on the end of a 43-43.5 inch steel shaft could only propel a 1964 ball so far.

Adding length to the 43 inch steel shaft created more weight and the need for more strength to swing the club at the same or faster speeds.  Most golfers didn't have the additional strength necessary to generate faster clubhead speeds with those clubs.

Try swinging a 50 inch driver with a steel shaft with a half a pound weight on the end, and tell me if you can get the clubhead speed to 50 mph.  Then try for 30 mph.

The advent of lighter graphite shafts, and hollow titanium heads allowed for the reduction and redistribution of the weight of the club, and with titanium, with its greater strength to weight ratio, allowed for thin faced clubheads and faces, while retaining structural integrity.

These factors, lighter shafts, longer shafts, and head technology have allowed golfers to hit the ball longer, not fitness.  At 61 I'm far less fit then I was at 31, yet hit the ball farther, despite the physical effects of aging.  
How do you explain that ?

In addition, UNFIT, OLDER golfers are hitting the ball farther than FRANK STRANAHAN, a PGA TOUR PRO and one of the most fit golfers ever to play the game.  
How do you explain that ?

You're either in the dark, in denial, or both.

[Robert_Walker]

Does anyone have any comment on the Phase II of the USGA Ball testing proposal.
I think this may well be a roll back.

[Daniel_Wexler]

I'm with Patrick.

It's a little hard for me the fathom that there are actually people out there attempting the argument that technology isn't the primary factor in modern length.  Of course agronomy helps, and of course most Tour players are in better shape than the players of old, but guys....

At the Open, players were frequently driving it 370 YARDS!

To look at Hogan or Nelson or Snead's swing and suggest that this quantum leap stems from improved technique is laughable.

To suggest that players are generally bigger and stronger carries some weight, of course, but A) you've got guys Hogan's size hitting it miles past where he did, and B) nobody out there - and I mean nobody - is as big and strong as George Bayer was, yet they're hitting it vastly beyond big George.

Say you like golf better this way, you don't care about the game's continuity, the heightened cost doesn't bother you, or whatever.  But to suggest that technology isn't the primary factor in 370 yard drives really is a form of denial.

DW

[George Pazin]

Don't listen to JohnV - I personally witnessed him hit two drives this past weekend over 350.

 

[JohnV]

Not fair George, they were downhill and downwind.

As for the USGA proposal, it appears that they are taking about 7 yards off the maximum a ball can go.  They say that by increasing swing speed from 109 to 120, they add 22 yards to the distance a ball goes.  By switching from a laminated wooden driver to a titanium one with a COR of .820, they add 8 yards.  Total of 30 added to the 296.8 would be 326.8, but they are proposing seting the standard at 320.  Basically it sounds to me that they are saying that distance added by increased swing speed is being tolerated, but not the COR.

Here is the the new proposal: New Ball Proposal

[George Pazin]

Not to mention the inferior Nike steel shafted steel head driver & the inferior Strata Tour Ace ball....

Sounds like the new proposal is encouraging.

[JohnV]

George, you should have seen the nice little 295 yard 3-wood I hit the other day with my new inferior Nike club.  And that was over flat ground.  Sure helps when the ground is firm.

[Geoff_Shackelford]

There's some nice strong language in the new ball proposal, but this is still working around what is on the marketplace, so it's not a rollback. Also, Frank Thomas's revised indoor test did not work around a set launch angle or if spin rates were adjusted, but instead, it analyzed the ball at all launch angles and different spin rates (which is why it was no good, it would have made several current balls illegal). This test has one set launch angle.

Nice to see they are trying to do something at least, just way too late and without dealing with equipment that passed the old ODS in a backdoor manner that would not have made it by the test Thomas created and the Executive Committee and Dick Rugge ran away from.