Good post Mike, except I think you're wrong on the USGA having the necessary technology. Doesn't matter though, because technology or not the USGA let this thing get out of hand.

glad you have finally seen the light, Brother Cirba. ..maybe Titleist will send you a dozen Pro V1s as a gift......

Dan, I do disagree with that last sentiment. If distance were the only facet, I would agree with you.

The analogies to other games, diminishes intrinsic variables that makes our sport the greatest.

I'm sure the ball companies will be happy to sell reduced flight balls to every single classic (inelastic) course that hasn't already disfigured themselves.


All those landscape architecture students will have a chance to payoff their student loans when longer and/or more thoughtful designs are built for the top 5%

So how far do you hit it then, Matt?

Mike --

Thanks for calling the bluff of those who say the distance issue is being overblown. I've always wondered why they accept any limits at all on the golf ball and equipment, if they are so resistent to rolling back the limits to an earlier time.

Are we now living in the optimum era for distance? Is this where we should draw the line? How about 5 more yards next year -- no big deal? Then maybe 5 the year after that, and then another 5? Why not 15 right now, or 20? Do I hear 30?

If you reject Mike's modest propsal as absurd, then you favor a limit. Why not 1985?  

Good stuff Mike.

I'd love to at least see some of the pros who have their own tournaments like Jack with the Memorial or better yet Tiger's Target silly season event require a reduced distance or 1985 ball.  They have advocated bringing the ball back so let's see them help push the manufactures to at least provide the option for a classic course or tournament ball.  

It's only tipping point time in your mind.

I'm no Apologist and I refuse to call you any name.

In your joke above you cite the futility in reigning in tech specs because the geniuses of the world will figure-out how to out teach the skill, still under the rules. Defense is much more difficult, ask any network, so why defend?
I cannot imagine that twenty less yards will appease the furvor of the faction that has decided that enough is enough.

Ask for bifurcation, trifurcation, quadification,,, it's better than the brainwashing.

Adam,

My sincerest apologies if that term offended you and I certainly didn't mean anything personal in the least.  

I certainly wasn't pointing at anyone in particular here in using the term "apologist".  I just think those who believe that no further advances can be gained are buying into the kool-aid that the equipment companies would have you believe and I also think the USGA like to throw that line around because it makes it seem as though somehow the damage is now contained.

I'm not a fan of bifurcation, simply because I am a firm believer that one of the most basic and simple allures is that we all play the same game and have for centuries.  It is only in the last ten years that I've ever heard anyone suggest otherwise, so these changes are all very new, and very dramatic.  

I don't think I'm an alarmist or a chicken little.  Nobody even considered this type of stuff as recently as a decade ago.

So what is your suggestion, Tom? Leave it alone? Wait and hope against hope the USGA and the R&A will stop worrying about lawsuits from manufacturers and act?
I don't care about whether GCA has any influence. That isn't part of this debate. But who does have influence and what should be done?

Tom, you are a good player with plenty of tournament experience. Is there a way to fix the issue of the 350 yard drive by a guy who admits he never works out? Or should we just forget about it?

And then you have geniuses like David Moriarty and his home-made hypothetical graphs and Tour stats analysises who're trying to imply he knows more about the  past and present technology of the golf ball than the USGA Tech Center does.

Tom,

On a number of occasions you have written that I think I know more about the past and present technology of the golf ball than the scientists at the USGA Tech Center.   I doubt I have ever said or implied any such thing--  I don't know nearly as much as the scientists at the USGA Tech Center and have repeatedly so said.  

Could you do me a favor and tell me exactly what it is about the past and present technology of the golf ball that you think I think I know better than the USGA Tech guys?

As for the charts, to which one do you refer?  Based on your past comments, I assume you are talking about the one where I charted estimated linear distance gains of two different balls.  While the actual distances used were hypothetical, the point still stands--  Even assuming linear distance increases, a new golf ball may well greatly benefit those with high swing speeds while not benefiting those with slower swing speeds at all.

John Vanderbordt did a similar analysis, trying to accurately estimate distance gains and he came up with very similar results.  

You've repeatedly criticized my use of the chart but you have never explained to me what is specifically wrong with my assumptions or chart.   So I ask you, just what is it about my assumptions, chart, or conclusions that so offends your sensibilities?  Where exactly are the flaws?

The very first thing some of you critics should do is call the USGA's Tech Center. Who of you who have posted on here thus far have done that? And if not, why haven't you? It's probably because most of you geniuses think you know how to solve the distance problem better than they do.

You've suggested this before, but frankly I'd rather leave them to their very important business rather than bothering them with my questions.   I've taken you at your word regarding everything you have relayed from them and have no need to make them repeat what they have already explained.  

So John, if those championship tees get moved back another 400 yards will you be happy if the modern ball goes even further so you can stay back on those even longer championship tees?

Do you enjoy golf more today hitting longer from the championship tees versus hitting it not quite as long from the not quite championship tees?  Isn't it the same game either way, with ego being the only difference?

Tom Paul,

My proposed solution of scrapping the present regulations is purely tongue in cheek.  

Sometimes humor doesn't come across well here, but my proposal was simply taking things to an exaggerated, but somehow logical conclusion based on the present course that I thought begged the obvious question, "how much distance is ENOUGH?"  When will we as golfers be satisfied?  How long do our courses need to be when I see virtually every major this year played at 7,500 yards?  The ironic thing is that this isn't nearly long enough if we're talking about playing the same game that was played a generation ago.  For some type of parity, and a reintroduction of long-irons and fairway woods into the game, our courses need to be closer to 8,500.

Obviously, something is wrong with this picture.

Yes, I'm frustrated that the USGA & R&A haven't done a better job at setting and enforcing standards.  Yes, I'd like to see some type of solution and no I don't know what that exact technological answer might be, but I'm not a believer that 1) No further technical advances in equipment and distance is possible, and 2) The improved USGA methods of testing are suddenly impervious to being worked "around" by smart guys in labs somewhere.  

So, I guess ultimately my inane proposal was simply an appeal to golfers...not to the ruling bodies or the folks who make their living appealing to our vanity and macho competitive nature, but simply asking Joe and Jane golfer what type of game we'd like to see going forward.

I can tell you that if a competition ball were introduced and enforced in championship play, I'd be playing it.  I might lose some distance and perhaps have to play the game as I did back in high school, when I was perhaps 25 yards shorter.  Big deal.  

It's sort of funny.  Back then, balls would differentiate themselves from a marketing perspective by how tough or resistant to cutting they were.  Yes, they'd imply that they were perhaps longer, but everyone knew that there wasn't much distinction in the bunch, unless you played one of those 80 compression balls that felt like silly putty, or a rock solid "Top Flite", where you gave up touch for 10 extra yards.

Or, perhaps this is all for the better and we'll all advance happily into a golfing future where we hit the ball longer and longer on bigger and bigger playgrounds.  I just think that any number of economic, environmental, and demographic factors make that a very unlikely scenario.

However, I do believe the comments of Frank Thomas are apt regarding what is indeed possible for future gains on the lines of what we have seen most recently. Of course -- to the naysayers the response will be just who is Frank Thomas. My comeback is a simple one -- he worked for the USGA for upteen years and knows more about equipment than just about any other person on the planet.

Matt,

I agree with your main points but I must disagree with this part. While Frank Thomas is very knowledgable about equipment and has "seen it all" while working for the USGA I'll guarantee that there are engineers at Callaway, Taylor Made, et. al. who understand clubs and/or balls at a level of detail far beyond Mr. Thomas.