I hesitate to touch this thread because this subject can get so contentious and so opinionated, but I think I know precisely where Frank Thomas is coming from even if the way he explains it is quite easy for many to misinterpret. I've been lucky to have talked to Frank over the last 3-4 years about this subject and the details of it---I'd say perhaps for a total of a solid day or two over those years. Frank was and sometimes is seemingly slightly suspicious of why I asked him all I did but at other times he was remarkably forthcoming, open and non-defensive.

I like Frank a great deal, and like many still in the tech center from his tenure there I admire him too. He's such an interesting man with an outlook on this subject that was and apparenty still is roundly misunderstood by many from both within and without the USGA. First, one needs to understand where Frank Thomas was and is coming from on this subject. Frank has a fantastic scientific mind but by his own admission he was not a political operative either within or without the USGA during his 26 year tenure as the USGA Tech Director. Those sitll at the tech center who worked for him have tremendous respect for his scientific mind.

To understand where Frank took the USGA tech center it should be pointed out that when he got there (Frank came from South Africa) the USGA tech center was about the size of a three car garage. When Frank left 26 years later it was the mulit-million dollar facility it is today.

The other thing most don't seem to understand is the actual testing procedures and actual test mechanisms the USGA has always used and still does and the meaning of them. Frank monitored the design and construction of all of them. The USGA does not buy those things---they design and make them all. Most don't understand the importance of actual testing of I&B by the USGA---either actually or as to its legal ramifications in the decision making that results from them.

And lastly, for better or for worse, one needs to understand that for reasons seemingly beyond Frank's control those who he advised for various and sundry reasons basiclly decided not to listen to him well enough or his warning whether actual or implied or to fully understand what he was telling them about golf I&B technology and its impact on the future of the game.

Somewhat sadly, but with no apparent bitterness on his part, in my opinion, Frank said if he had it all to do over again he would learn how to be more politically savy, certainly from within the organization he worked for so long. He was a good messenger in a technical sense. What he realizes now he should've been better as a teacher and educator to those who were making the decisions of what to do and what not to do. Unfortunately for people in Frank's capacity even if you are able to educate those who make the decisions as soon as you've educated them they're gone and someone new takes their place who needs to be educated anew. That's just the nature of a "board" run organization like the USGA is and the R&A is.

Frank is most definitely no whimp in his opinions on I&B technology and early on that made him appear to be contentious from both without and particularly from within and in the end that got him fired.

In this business of I&B technology the type, design and actual testing equipment is far more of what this is all about than most everyone on here seems to understand. The reason it's more important than most understand is eventually what's decided technically (conforming or not) needs to have actual test backup information and explanation to inherently defend decisions in a legal sense.

The extent of Frank's optimization test and the rather odd history of what happened to it is an excellent microcosim of Frank Thomas's entire tenure as the USGA tech director in a most important time in golf I&B techology.

And lastly, those out there and in there who tend to unilaterally blame Frank Thomas for what happened with distance (and a few other things to do with technology in golf) in recent times simply do not understand this subject and issue and the history of it---there is no question of that at all.

In a real sense Frank Thomas and his tenure with the USGA is a classic example of that old saw---"Overlook the message and blame the messenger".

For the posters who criticise Frank.  Which equipment/ball factor do you think should have been limited earlier?

Clearly, the ball test specification should have been updated years ago. They continued testing golf balls with a wooden driver head and moderate (by male Tour professional) clubhead speeds for what, nearly a decade after newer technology balls began replacing the old wound balatas on Tour?

They knew from decades of experience what happened when someone hit a wound balata ball at clubhead speeds substantially greater than their test setup. The ball would spin like hell and upshoot, limiting the effective distance gains while also imposing a sidespin penalty on slightly misstruck shots. So the moderate-speed test was adequate for that type of ball technology.

Frank Thomas or someone surely noticed that a Strata Tour Pro or, later, a ProV1 actually carries a lot farther when hit at 120mph than it does when hit at 100mph. And if it characteristic rebound time matches up well with a metal driver face it can go a ton farther. At that point, right then and there, they knew everything needed to reach the conclusion that driving distances on the PGA Tour and for big hitting good players in general were about to make a big jump that their testing regime did not take into account.

The question that mystifies me is why that critical five years or so was allowed to pass before the test was updated to realistic conditions. It was entirely possible from a technical perspective for us to be playing golf ball right now that perform no better than a late-90's Strata Tour Professional no matter how hard they are hit or with what kind of driver. To roll the specification back to that point now is going to prove politically impossible, IMO. They put their fingers in their ears and went "Nah, nah, nah, can't hear a thing" until it was too late to do anything about it.

In short, sticking with a crappy 60's vintage golf ball test spec for a decade into the three-piece urethane ball era was willfully shortsighted and a dereliction of responsibility.

Brent

They did test low spin balls:  Top Flights, Pinnacles...  And I don't think the new Pro VIs go any further than a surlyn ball from the 80s/90s:  Pinnacles etc.

They did test low spin balls:  Top Flights, Pinnacles...  And I don't think the new Pro VIs go any further than a surlyn ball from the 80s/90s:  Pinnacles etc.

Perhaps so. However, they assumed that good players would not be hitting hard surlyn covered balls (which was correct) so it didn't particularly matter how far a Pinnacle could carry when hit at 120mph. The incorrect assumption was that unsuitability for good players and the ability to fly a long way without upshooting went hand in hand.

The ball manufacturers did a pretty good job of inventing novel technological means to circumvent a static set of regulations on performance. They in effect gamed the test. The correct response is to update the test in a timely manner when someone learns how to dodge it.

Perhaps so. However, they assumed that good players would not be hitting hard surlyn covered balls (which was correct) so it didn't particularly matter how far a Pinnacle could carry when hit at 120mph. The incorrect assumption was that unsuitability for good players and the ability to fly a long way without upshooting went hand in hand.

The ball manufacturers did a pretty good job of inventing novel technological means to circumvent a static set of regulations on performance. They in effect gamed the test. The correct response is to update the test in a timely manner when someone learns how to dodge it.

Brent

I guess it all depends how important you think the 10-15 yards gain is, for pros using a low spin ball.  Within the context of all players.

I don't think the manufacturers circumvented the test. They just optimised the ball.

I'm curious how the new proposed spin test will be implemented.

Is getting as many people as possible playing the sport the long-term mission of the USGA?  Or is it protecting the game?

If it is number of players playing, then we might as well have no standards at all.  The baseball analogy is appropriate in that you had a rules making, governing body working in concert with the equipment manufacturers for the betterment of the sport.  Wouldn't this be a good thing with FO and ELY and the USGA?

I heard the discussion on The GC last night.

One thing I would like to know about is shaft technology. My guess is that it will improve far beyond the offerings today. Does the USGA look at shafts?

Technology really never ends. To say it has "maxed" out is most likley not true. Smart people finds ways to improve and change.

So shafts will not get better allowing for even more distance from a driver? The ball is just one part.

My money says we will see distance improve on the PGA year to year despite Mr Thomas remarks  

We may well see an increase, but I thinkdue to the players not equipment.

The shafts are optimised in terms of weight which is by far the most important factor for a shaft (in terms of clubhead speed).  You can extrapolate for a theoretical weightless shaft but it doesn't gain you much.  The shaft length is limited because the difficulty in turning the club is proportional to the square of its length (moment of inertia).

Once in a while you here claims about special flexes in shafts that supposedly gain distance.  But those claims soon disappear as latest fad.

The shafts are optimised in terms of weight which is by far the most important factor for a shaft (in terms of clubhead speed).  

Tiger and Vijay both use a rather heavy shaft right now; presumably because it is the only one capable of resisting the enourmous torque their swing speeds produce. If shaft manufactuerers were able to provide these characteristics in a shaft that was 30 grams lighter, wouldn't this lead to a significant increase in both swing speed and distance for the Tour's longest hitters?

Pete

I have data to hand that states a 30 g reduction in shaft weight results in only a 2-3 yard gain.

The PGA Tour and the USGA are collecting the data from Shotlink and have said they will use actual data, and not emotion, and assumptions to determine the next step.

I understand that Shotlink tracks EVERY shot taken at every tour stop.