[Brent Hutto]

Tom P,

There's a difference between "carries slightly less than the optimum distance through the air when struck by a driver" and "hurts their game". Everything about golf equipment is a tradeoff.

I'd say as you get information from USGA Tech Center please continue to share it with us. But I'd caution that when you are unable to reconcile your interpretation of something you hear from a USGA Tech person and your interpretation of something you read here...that does not always imply that one statement or the other is incorrect. Sometimes the fault is not in our stars but in ourselves, dear Tom.

[DMoriarty]

John V.,

Thanks for the additional data.   I simplified my approach by using 110 mph and 297 yds as my fulcrum point (a point that all balls would try to hit but not be above) but I can see now after rerunning some of the numbers that even this slight variation makes a difference.  

I based my slopes for the pink line loosely on the numbers and explanation of the USGA press release, here . . .

http://www.usga.org/news/2003/july/conformance.html

It seems we are in agreement that it is quite possible and perhaps even likely that the technology has produced a steeper line, and thus helped the big hitter without necessarily benefiting the short hitter.  

TomP asked . . .

I'm not exactly sure why you think a lower spining ball is of any detriment to a slower swing speed player.

The high swing speed players can generate enough speed to get the proper trajectory for maximum carry without much spin.   The slower swing players cannot.  

JohnV asked:

All I will ask is that if a low spinning ball hurt the slower swing speed, why did the high handicappers all play Pinnacles and Top-Rocks for years?

Brent provides a large part of the answer, but forgets one important factor:  $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Balatas not only cost substantially more, they didn't last nearly as long.  One bad swing could ruin them.   The new balls are so durable that I think this  has caused us to forget just how easy it was to ruin a balata.  

[Dave Bourgeois]

Pete L,

Your last post makes lots of sense to me.  Higher swing speeds give the player the ability to launch the ball at the optimum angle with a lower lofted driver, and thus with the optimum spin rate.  To get a similar launch angle with a slower swing speed one would generally need a higher lofted driver which should put more back spin on the ball.  

Now that's as far as I can go.  I don't know if what I think is correct, but it makes some sense to me at an empirical level.      

[TEPaul]

Brent:

Regardless of whatever innuendo you're implying I feel the most reliable source of information on I&B issues is from the USGA Tech Center, not necessarily from those on this website who speculate on these I&B issues.

As I said to someone else on this thread the USGA is our national amateur golf association who're charged with monitoring and regulating golf balls and equipment. Anyone can call them and ask them technical questions, certainly not just me.

[Brent Hutto]

Tom,

I wasn't attempting innuendo. I do in fact appreciate when you (or anyone else) checks with the USGA folks and reports back here. I just think you're too quick to dismiss as clueless things that are said which you incorrectly take as being inconsistent with what you hear from the USGA.

The case in point being the low-spin ball thing. There are two facts that you believe are in conflict when they are actually mutually consistent:

1) For low clubhead speed players, a low-spin ball produces less carry distance with the driver (generally a few yards) than they would get with a higher-spin ball.

2) For years and years the majority of low clubhead speed players have found that low-spin balls work best for their game.

As I pointed out in my earlier posts, #2 in no way disproves #1 because #1 does not imply anything about what is the best ball for someone's game.

I am a case in point. I know from theory and from personal experience that using a ball that spins a lot off the driver will gain me 5, 6, 7 yards of carry distance. The high-spin ball works a little better on chips and short pitch shots, to boot.

That said, if I want to shoot the lowest score I use a harder cover, lower spin ball like a Noodle because the extra roll can somewhat offset the lesser carry distance, slices stay more on line, I get better trajectory and distance on iron shots and the ball holds it line better in the wind. None of that changes the fact that the maximum driver distance (carry) is achieved with a high-spin ball, there's just more to the game than driver distance.

[TEPaul]

"The high swing speed players can generate enough speed to get the proper trajectory for maximum carry without much spin.  The slower swing players cannot."

David:

The higher swing speed player probably does generate a higher trajectory and greater carry than a slower swing speed player. In golf this generally falls into the realm of what's referred to as "skill" which according to the Joint Statement of Principles "is the dominant element of success throughout the game."

Is this to say that a slower swing speed player is not generating a trajectory and carry distance commensurate with his "skill" level? Are you trying to imply that a slower swing speed player should be able to acheive something close to an identical result as a higher swing speed player? And if you are why would you want to do that?

By the way, as I recall, according to the Tech Center the absolute ideal launch angle of club and ball is technically not acheivable by a human being.

[Brent Hutto]

By the way, as I recall, according to the Tech Center the absolute ideal launch angle of club and ball is technically not acheivable by a human being.

I'd add one word to that statement.

"Yet"

[TEPaul]

"I just think you're too quick to dismiss as clueless things that are said which you incorrectly take as being inconsistent with what you hear from the USGA.

The case in point being the low-spin ball thing. There are two facts that you believe are in conflict when they are actually mutually consistent:

1) For low clubhead speed players, a low-spin ball produces less carry distance with the driver (generally a few yards) than they would get with a higher-spin ball.

2) For years and years the majority of low clubhead speed players have found that low-spin balls work best for their game.

As I pointed out in my earlier posts, #2 in no way disproves #1 because #1 does not imply anything about what is the best ball for someone's game.

I am a case in point. I know from theory and from personal experience that using a ball that spins a lot off the driver will gain me 5, 6, 7 yards of carry distance. The high-spin ball works a little better on chips and short pitch shots, to boot.

That said, if I want to shoot the lowest score I use a harder cover, lower spin ball like a Noodle because the extra roll can somewhat offset the lesser carry distance, slices stay more on line, I get better trajectory and distance on iron shots and the ball holds it line better in the wind. None of that changes the fact that the maximum driver distance (carry) is achieved with a high-spin ball, there's just more to the game than driver distance."

Brent:

I'm not sure why you need to say I'm dismissing anything as clueless. I haven't done that on this thread. All I'm doing is telling you and David Moriarty what the Tech Center told me. David Moriarty mentioned on this thread the the new age balls have some 'explosive effect' at higher swing speeds. I called the USGA Tech Center and asked them AGAIN if they believe that to be true and they said they didn't.

On the other hand, if you two are saying that putting a limitation on the MINIMUM amount of spin rate of the golf ball can likely lessen the distance power players are hitting the ball today then I agree with you. I've been saying that on here for years now.

And you say that lower spin rate balls carry less far than higher spin rate balls? That has never been my experience and the whole point of the lower spin rate balls used by higher swing speed players these days is that they launch higher than high spin rate balls and consequently have a greater carry distance. That's most of the reason for the distance spike as it relates to higher swing speed players since the basic "switch" in the last decade or so. Otherwise why didn't the tour players hit the old high spin rate balls farther than they do these lower spin rate balls like a ProV?

I'm really not sure what you're saying in your #1 and #2 example and what you're assuming I believe.

[TEPaul]

"I'd add one word to that statement.

"Yet" "

Brent:

Do you disagree with the Tech Center when they say that it is physically impossible for a human being to hit a golf ball at the technically ideal angle of attack?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Brent Hutto,

Could you define or quantify LOW clubhead speeds that you reference.

It would help knowing at which speeds these results are garnered.

Thanks

[Brent Hutto]

Here's how I understand it.

For any clubhead speed there's a driver loft that will maximize carry distance. For my 88mph or so it's somewhere over 14 degrees, for typical male golfers in the 95mph range I think it's about 12 degrees, for someone who can produce 120mph it can go as low as 7.5 or 8 degrees.

That optimum loft is changed somewhat by how much of an upward blow you produce by teeing the ball high and forward. It also weakly depends on how much the particular ball you use spins (which in turn depends on the characteristic time of the clubface/ball combination). But all these are minor effects and the main effect is that the more clubhead speed the less loft you need to get perfect trajectory.

Assuming you have optimized the loft of your driver then there's some ideal amount of backspin to works with that loft and your clubhead speed to produce the maximum carry distance. At very low clubhead speeds (say under 85mph) there's no ball in the world that spins "enough" to produce the optimum carry distance. No matter what ball you use, a little more backspin would be good. At very high clubhead speeds (say over 125mph) there's any ball in the world spin more than optimum.

There's some point that I understand to be around 100mph (or maybe a bit higher, I'm not sure) where you might as well just use whatever ball works best otherwise because your trajectory is pretty much ballistic and the added distance from the highest-spin balls are only slightly more than with the lowest-spin balls. When you get well above that clubhead speed then you at least need to avoid the very highest spin balls or else you'll get that old Balata/Persimmon style upshooter that costs distance and is not the trajectory the better players want. Hence things like the ProV1x which spins less off the driver for high clubhead speed players than the original ProV1.

At the very highest clubhead speeds the players spend a lot of time getting a ball/driver combination with the lowest spin practical (although it will still be a little "too much" spin) because it makes such a big difference in their trajectory and carry distance on square, center hits. Below 100mph or so some guys still go through the ball/driver fitting process but they're really wasting their time because they're just getting slight variations on what's basically a ballistic (very little influence of backspin) ball flight.

Note Bene 1: In reality to do a perfect optimization you have to simultaneously find the optimum loft and optimum spin because they interact. That's only if you want to get it down to the last few percent of optimum carry.

Note Bene 2: Optimizations can involve varying the swing path, the characteristic time of the clubface and ball, the aerodynamic dimples, how high you tee it (to catch it on the upswing) and all sorts of other factors.

Note Bene 3: None of this applies much to the typical 90-95mph swing for which mostly you just need to get the golfer to use plenty of loft (12 or more degrees) rather than trying to use a 10-degree driver and swinging upward to compensate for the lack of loft.

Final Note: And keep in mind that maximizing driver carry distance is not necessarily the be-all and end-all of fitting equipment to your golf game.

[DMoriarty]

Is this to say that a slower swing speed player is not generating a trajectory and carry distance commensurate with his "skill" level? Are you trying to imply that a slower swing speed player should be able to acheive something close to an identical result as a higher swing speed player? And if you are why would you want to do that?

Tom,

I am NOT saying that the slower swing players should be able to achieve anything close to the same as the higher swing player.  

I AM saying that slower swing players do not swing hard enough to reap much (or any) distance benefit from balls like the ProV1x or even the ProV.

Look at it this way . . . Yesterday you said it may be possible to push back on the longest hitters by putting a lower limit on swing speed, and that this change might not hurt slow swing players.   If this is in fact true, then the lower swing speed players are not actually benefiting distance-wise from these new low spin balls.  

And you say that lower spin rate balls carry less far than higher spin rate balls? That has never been my experience and the whole point of the lower spin rate balls used by higher swing speed players these days is that they launch higher than high spin rate balls and consequently have a greater carry distance. That's most of the reason for the distance spike as it relates to higher swing speed players since the basic "switch" in the last decade or so. Otherwise why didn't the tour players hit the old high spin rate balls farther than they do these lower spin rate balls like a ProV?

I dont think anyone said that the lower spin rate balls carry less far under every circumstance.   In fact, the big hitter can launch them high enough to maximize the benefits of their lack of spin.  If they took that kind of a rip at the balata, the ball would balloon to the moon and lose substantial distance.

In contrast, the lower swing rate players arent hurt distance-wise by a higher spin ball.  The spin might actually benefit them distance-wise, giving them a higher trajectory and more carry.   They can't swing hard enough for the spin to start to hurt them distance-wise.

Tom,

You keep contrasting what we are saying here to what the USGA told you.  I think what we are saying is entirely consistent with what you said the USGA told you.  

[Brent Hutto]

Do you disagree with the Tech Center when they say that it is physically impossible for a human being to hit a golf ball at the technically ideal angle of attack?

I'm not sure what the optimum angle is but I suspect it's an upward blow you couldn't create without a foot-tall tee or something. You just never know what way these guys might figure out one day to change the ideal to something they can do.

[Garland Bayley]

...
2) For years and years the majority of low clubhead speed players have found that low-spin balls work best for their game.
...

I didn't read the whole thread, so please forgive me if I am way off base.

To the above assertion, I would caution not confusing the use of low spin balls by low clubhead speed players as being best for their game with as being what is found at Wal-mart.
I.e., I would say the majority of players playing low spin balls due so because of the cost, not because of any discernable characteristics of play.
 

[DMoriarty]

While Brent says it just as well above, here is what our friends at Titleist say about the impact of spin on different swing speeds

. . . The greater the ball speed or spin rate, the greater the lift force. A proper amount of lift force results in an optimized trajectory that will maximize the distance for a given ball speed. Excessive lift, on the other hand, creates a shot that balloons, climbing excessively and costing the player significant distance. This fault is most commonly observed in hard-hitting amateurs using equipment poorly fit to their game. Proper golf club and ball selection usually helps these players to flatten their trajectory, improving their distance significantly.

The opposite can also be true. Many players with slow swing speeds don't generate enough lift force for the ball to experience positive lift. This group of players never sees any upward climb in their trajectory. Instead, their trajectory shape is usually low and flat, commonly referred to as a ballistic trajectory. For these players, a greater portion of their overall distance is often obtained through roll. Obviously, this player requires a golf club and ball selection completely different from the high lift player profile. By fitting the low lift player with equipment to produce more lift, the result is a more optimized trajectory for greater distance for the low swing speed player. . . .

from http://www.titleist.com/technology/launchmonitor.asp?bhcp=1

[TEPaul]

"Tom,
I am NOT saying that the slower swing players should be able to achieve anything close to the same as the higher swing player."

David:

Good. I suppose the most equitable result would be if distance increase proportionally matched swing speed increase.  

"I AM saying that slower swing players do not swing hard enough to reap much (or any) distance benefit from balls like the ProV1x or even the ProV."

How do you know what distance benefit slow swing speed players are reaping from low spin rate balls? Do you realize most all slow swing speed players have been using low spin rate balls for over 40 years? Do you realize that most high swing speed players have been using low spin rate balls for not more than 10 years?

"Look at it this way . . . Yesterday you said it may be possible to push back on the longest hitters by putting a lower limit on swing speed, and that this change might not hurt slow swing players.  If this is in fact true, then the lower swing speed players are not actually benefiting distance-wise from these new low spin balls."

First of all, I did not say it may be possible to push back on the longest hitters by putting a lower limit on swing speed. That would be impossible to do anyway. I did say it may be possible to somewhat reign in distance for high swing speed players if some some limitation was put on the MINIMUM amount of SPIN RATE a golf ball could have. Secondly, you seem to be saying that slow swing speed players did not benefit from a low spin rate ball like the high swing speed player has. I don't think you can say that as the slow swing speed player was apparently never subjected to the distance diminishing phenomenon the high swing speed player was when using a high spin rate ball.

The way you seem to try to deduce things one could probably more logically say that now that most all high swing speed players have gone to low spin rate balls (the type most slow swing speed players have used for about 40 years) then all swing speeds are now on a more proportional level with the distances they produce. And this may have a good deal to do with why the USGA Tech Center has said they see a linear result in distance production to swing speed increase.

"I dont think anyone said that the lower spin rate balls carry less far under every circumstance."

It looks to me like Brent Hutto said high spin rate balls carry farther than low spin rate balls. I believe the opposite to be true, at least for high swing speed players.

"In fact, the big hitter can launch them high enough to maximize the benefits of their lack of spin.  If they took that kind of a rip at the balata, the ball would balloon to the moon and lose substantial distance."

I realize that and have been saying that for years. A high spinning ball like the old balata when hit hard by a high swing speed player would start at on a very flat and low trajectory for perhaps 100 yards and then climb dramatically (I believe I said like a Lear Jet climbing from take-off ). This is the opposite of a distance enhancing trajectory.

"In contrast, the lower swing rate players arent hurt distance-wise by a higher spin ball.  The spin might actually benefit them distance-wise, giving them a higher trajectory and more carry.  They can't swing hard enough for the spin to start to hurt them distance-wise."

I agree that low swing speed players do not swing hard enough to create the type of trajectory that hurts high swing speed players distance-wise with a high spin rate ball. It is hard for me to say what the difference is in carry and distance to a slow swing speed player between a low spin rate ball and a high spin rate ball. My observations over the decades (remmebering that I'm a lot older than you and I actually remember when everyone used high spin rate golf balls) is that there isn't much difference to a slow swing speed player in trajectory or carry distance between a low spin rate and high spin rate golf ball.

And if that's true that would explain both why you are likely not correct in assuming high swing speed players get some sort of disportionately benefical result compared to a slow swing speed player with low spin rate balls when one factors in the increased "skill" of a high swing speed player (skill in the sense they are physically capable of swinging faster). It could also be the key to being able to somewhat roll back the distance of high swing speed players by legislating a LIMITATION on the MINIMUM SPIN RATE a golf ball can have without really effecting the distance of low swing speed players.

"Tom,
You keep contrasting what we are saying here to what the USGA told you.  I think what we are saying is entirely consistent with what you said the USGA told you."

David:

I don't know that I keep contrasting what you are saying here to what the USGA told me. In this thread you stated that these low spin rate balls (ProVs) result in some "explosive effect" for high swing speed players. To me this connotes that with a high swing speed player there is some disporportionate distance increase in relation to swing speed increase at some point in a high swing speed player's swing speed. I called the USGA Tech Center and asked them about that and they said they believe that is just not true and the distance result to increased swing speed is bascially linear.

Now, if you want to debate what they mean by linear then I suggested you call them and ask them precisely what they mean by linear, rather than indulging in hypothetical graphs and statements to perhaps attempt to proof there is some "explosive effect" or non-linear relationship in all this. And if it appears I contrasted anything else they told me with what you've said on here it's probably because sometimes on here it's hard for me to tell what it is you're saying or trying to say.

Again, if you are saying that a practical solution to the distance spike of high swing speed players may somewhat result from the legislating of a limitation on the minimum amount of spin rate a golf ball can have then we are in agreement. As I said above, I've been saying for years that seems perhaps a reliable possibility.

I'm not saying that is the only solution to reign in or roll back the distance spike of high swing speed players but it may be one way that's quite effective.

[TEPaul]

David Moriarty:

While there is much very good and very technical information on the Titleist website relating to golf ball performance, I think I would be a bit hesitant to call those at Titleist 'our friends' (unless you're being sarcastic) if you are in the camp that would like to see some rollback of this distance spike on the part of elite high swing speed players.

WallyU & Co have not exactly shown themselves to be much in the way of advocates or supporters of any kind of distance roll-back, so who the hell knows what kind of BS hype they might come up with? I'm not saying their basic technical information to do with golf ball performance is wrong but the way they translate what it means across the golfing skill-level spectrum very well may be misleading so they might better resist any kind of distance rollback.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul.

Wally's mission differs from that of David Fay's.

Their missions are at odds, if not at crossed swords, with one another.

I think Wally's done a great job at his position.

[ForkaB]

TEPaul.

Wally's mission differs from that of David Fay's.

Their missions are at odds, if not at crossed swords, with one another.

I think Wally's done a great job at his position.

Pat

Don't they have the same stated (or implied) overall mission--i.e. to grow the game of golf?

They are at odds only in regards to the means of doing that:  Wally thinks that technology will bring more people into the game; Fay et. al. think it will be done through First Tee programmes, universal DIY handicapping systems; etc.

Part of the real problem is that the USGA has another contradictory mission, i.e. to "protect" the game of golf (and believe that they, and the R&A, are uniquely qualified and authorized to define just what that "game" is--usually in terms of what it was, rather than what it might be).  So, on one hand they try to get more people into the game, and with the other hand they try to slap down any technological advancements which will make the game more enjoyable to play for the great majority of participants.

Wally, et.al. are fortunate that their additional objective (i.e. making a profit for their shareholders) is consonant with the growth of the game.

Organisations with fundamentally conflicting objectives/missions will never succeed, whatever arena they operate in.

[TEPaul]

"TEPaul.
Wally's mission differs from that of David Fay's.
Their missions are at odds, if not at crossed swords, with one another.
I think Wally's done a great job at his position."

Pat:

Remarks like that to me are basically just non-specific somewhat hollow words, nothing more. Fay's mission should be to protect the game of golf in the I&B context and Wally's mission should be to make money for his company. There is no reason at all they can't both get on the same page on this distance issue by either stopping the distance increase or rolling back the distance the ball goes in the future if they both want to see the game of golf remain healthy over the long haul.

[TEPaul]

"I think Wally's done a great job at his position."

Pat:

That's your opinion and I don't exactly share it. Titleist has always been a powerhouse in the ball sector of golf and I don't know that Wally Uiehlein's heretofore fairly adverserial position towards the R&A/USGA has exactly served the long-term mission of his company or golf all that well. Had Titleist been far more cooperative regarding this distance issue do you really think it would have hurt the company's bottom line or their reputation?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Don't they have the same stated (or implied) overall mission--i.e. to grow the game of golf?

I know what that means to Wally, increased product lines, increased sales and increased profits.

What does it mean to the USGA, diluting the quality of  product to make it more appealing ? [/color]

They are at odds only in regards to the means of doing that:  Wally thinks that technology will bring more people into the game; Fay et. al. think it will be done through First Tee programmes, universal DIY handicapping systems; etc.
I don't agree with your conclusion.
Making the game easier, quickly, isn't in the best interest of the "game" even if more people are drawn to it because it's been made less challenging.

As to the First Tee programs I don't know if they've been successful, despite their promotion as such.

I know more young people drawn to the game through caddying then I do throught the first tee programs.

I'm one of those dinosaurs that thinks good caddy programs are the best way to bring young people to the game.[/color]

Part of the real problem is that the USGA has another contradictory mission, i.e. to "protect" the game of golf (and believe that they, and the R&A, are uniquely qualified and authorized to define just what that "game" is--usually in terms of what it was, rather than what it might be).  

For a long, long while the USGA and the R&A performed well in "protecting" and "preserving" the "game".
It is only recently that the "game" is in jeopardy, vis a vis, high tech.

Geoff Shackelford has a feel for what the "game" is.
So does Ken Bakst, Roger Hansen and many other individuals familiar with its history, traditions and play.

The inherent lure of the game is its challenge and when you diminish that, you diminish the inherent lure.[/color]

So, on one hand they try to get more people into the game, and with the other hand they try to slap down any technological advancements which will make the game more enjoyable to play for the great majority of participants.

Here's where we really disagree.
I don't consider making the game easier vis a vis rapid technological advances as protecting the game, nor do I feel it will bring more people to the game in the long run.

If you lower the basket more people would play basketball ?
It would make it more enjoyable ?
The masses with an average height of 5'8" to 5'10" inches would enjoy it more because they too could dunk the ball ?

But, where do you stop, 8', 6' ?

In a "me" society the pressure is constant, if not ever increasing, to satisfy the whims of each individual, rather than protect the integrity of the game.  And, the integrity of the game is the inherent challenge it provides.

Fairness and ease of play aren't two virtues of the game.[/color]

Wally, et.al. are fortunate that their additional objective (i.e. making a profit for their shareholders) is consonant with the growth of the game.

Sometimes managing for quarterly goals blinds executives with respect to long term goals and maintaining the integrity of the product.[/color]

Organisations with fundamentally conflicting objectives/missions will never succeed, whatever arena they operate in.

That's a good point.

Ask yourself this.

Was it the USGA's stated mission to grow the game in 1928, 1938, 1948, 1958, 1968, 1978 or 1988 ?

Yet the game grew.
Was it the virtue of the game ?
Or was it the marketing efforts of the USGA ?

If you protect and preserve the game, its inate values will grow it, you don't need commercials to perform that misssion.[/color]

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

There was a time when the USGA and the manufacturers were in perfect harmony and the game was protected, preserved, and continued to grow.

A hand in glove relationship needs to be re-established, but, it's the manufacturers who are resisting because they know it will hurt their bottom lines, at least for the first few quarters, and maybe over the long haul.

[JohnV]

I know this isn't on the topic, but since others have brought it up, I'm going to post this.  As a new member of the board of the First Tee of Pittsburgh, I want to clarify a couple of things.

The mission of the First Tee is not to grow the game of golf, from their home page it is:

To impact the lives of young people by providing learning facilities and educational programs that promote character development and life-enhancing values through the game of golf.

If golf grows because of it, that is a side benefit.

In Pittsburgh last year, over 4000 kids came to First Tee functions and facilities.  Of those, over 2500 took 9 hours of life skills and golf classes and passed tests (written and golf) to earn their "credentials" from the program.  I doubt there were 2500 youngsters caddying in the entire state of Pennsylvania.  Even if none of those kids ever picked up a golf club again it would be a success.  Fortunately many of them will.

Go to the First Tee website and read about it and then tell me why the USGA or any organization shouldn't be supporting it.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Remarks like that to me are basically just non-specific somewhat hollow words, nothing more.

They're only hollow if you don't bother to analyze them.[/color]

Fay's mission should be to protect the game of golf in the I&B context and Wally's mission should be to make money for his company.

That's what I said.[/color]

There is no reason at all they can't both get on the same page on this distance issue by either stopping the distance increase or rolling back the distance the ball goes in the future if they both want to see the game of golf remain healthy over the long haul.

Firstly, public corporations tend to have a quarterly mind set.
Terms like "future" and "long haul" can be too far removed to be seen clearly.

And, there is a reason why they can't get on the same page.

Starting with Ping, the manufacturers felt that they could go their way, do their thing, outside of the perameters, which were ill defined in the age of hi-tech advances.

Part of the reason for this was the very rapid advances in hi-tech, the rotating nature of leadership in the USGA, finances, and vision, or rather the lack of the latter two.

IF, and it's a big [size=8x] IF [/size] the manufacturers would abide by and conform with USGA policy and I&B specs there would be NO problem.

The problem is, they won't.

The USGA has to provide the specs to alter the ball and equipment such that the game is protected and preserved, such that the inherent lure remains the challenge.

They have to avoid catering to the lowest common denominator, which is what the manufacturers have done.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()