[Kevin_Reilly]

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?

Vijay's ShaqX and Tiger's Diamana are heavier than many shafts used in drivers on tour, but there are many players with swing speeds in that general range that use shafts that are lighter than these.  For example, Mickelsons PM702 shaft is roughly 70 grams, which is about 10 grams less than Vijay's ShaqX.  Guys on the long driving tour don't use heavy shafts, and they create plenty of torque.

One reason that many players choose a heavier version of a shaft like Vijay or Tiger is that lighter shafts affect their tempo.  Going from 120+ grams in an iron shaft, to 100+ grams in a 3 wood shaft to 60-70 grams in a driver shaft would require better timing by Tiger.  So he doesn't go that light.

Chris DiMarco, one of the shortest hitters on tour, uses a Pro95 shaft that is one of the heaviest on tour...for feel reasons.

[Pete Lavallee]

Thanks for the explanation Kevin.

I  guess my real point was that Tiger gained significant distance by changing from a 120 gram 43" steel shaft to his 80 gram 45" Diamana shaft; the result is that par 3's are now 340 yards for him. So if he saw the need to get longer again he could go to a 60 gram 46" shaft and take another quantum leap in distance, couldn't he?

[Kevin_Reilly]

So if he saw the need to get longer again he could go to a 60 gram 46" shaft and take another quantum leap in distance, couldn't he?

Longer yes, but of course his control would be worse than it is today.  Lighter and longer = lefter and righter!

[Craig Sweet]

George, but lets make a decision based on DATA collected on the course, from people hitting the shots. All I have heard is an emotional plea for a shorter ball etc. that is based on an ASSUMPTION that pro's are hitting the ball too far.

And, that is part of this problem...for the vast majority of golfers old golf courses are NOT obsolete.

[john_stiles]

Frank's segments on the GolfChannel are always very interesting.  However,  it doesn't really give me any confidence in the overall USGA approach to the entire distance issue.  You need to be able to regulate.

Distances will increase again, maybe within the next 10 years.  For one thing, the clubhead, shaft, and golf ball manufacturers will continue to pour money into research into materials for covers, cores, and layers. They will continue to investigate the construction of the clubheads and shafts. They will continue  to investigate the golf ball and its materials and construction, the cores, layers, and dimples. They will continue  to look at how the B&I regulations are written and look for loopholes.

The USGA does not construct a single golf ball, shaft, or clubhead.   Until they have a lab or facility doing that work, they are only a testing facility. The USGA tests what is handed to them to test.  They are testing balls and clubs that have already been tested by the manufacturers and are expected to pass the USGA test.

Until the USGA is manufacturing clubs and balls for a profit, and has a staff and budget, equal to something approaching that of the club and ball manufacturers, they are not on an equal footing to those trying to push the envelop.

The nature of technology is to keep inching forward.  So, the USGA will always be in a reaction mode, reacting to new developments.  If they fear lawsuits or cannot regulate, they will always draw the line further out in the sand.

Meanwhile,  the area necessary for a championship course, or even a modest new course keeps growing and growing.  Mom and pop courses keep adding new tees so they are not a pitch and putt.   PGA senior reps are showing up at a 7000 yard course and saying it is too short.

Regardless, the USGA testing people are saying    ‘ We know all about this testing stuff, and it isn't a problem. Oh, by the way, we know so much, there will not be any new problems, it is all now resolved.‘

The most recent revision in testing has been to draw a new line in the sand,  further out.  Clubhead speed will increase in the future and there are no provisions to handle that except to draw a line, further out in the sand.

The USGA can handle all the issues of distance through the ball, whether that is a minimum spin rate, rolling back the ODS, etc.   Rolling back the ball or a competition ball would be nice.  

As Paul Richards pointed out,   everyone should read Geoff Shackleford's book 'The Future of Golf'.

[George Pazin]

Craig -

Agreed re: DATA, but they're not stretching old courses for the vast majority of golfers.

Personally I don't really care that the pros hit it so far, other than it causes old courses to be stretched and new courses to be less walkable. But, really, it doesn't affect me at all, as I am not a member of a classic and I'm happy to confine my golf to courses that I seek out to fit my notion of a golf course.

I would, however, be gigantically concerned if I were head of the PGA. When former die hard viewers like me lose interest, that can't bode well for the future. I think, rather, that they have mistaken Tiger's ability to win with the notion that people want to watch pros launch 350 yrd drives. Really, can anyone tell the difference between a 300 and 350 yard drive on TV? Heck, it's tough to tell the difference in person. But you can tell the difference between hitting a 5 iron into a green and a wedge.

[Kevin_Reilly]

Really, can anyone tell the difference between a 300 and 350 yard drive on TV? Heck, it's tough to tell the difference in person.

Agree..it is the same as auto racing with restrictors...200 mph looks fast, and so does 180 mph.

[Craig Sweet]

George, I agree regarding the pro's.

But I don't think classic courses need to be modified for the average golfer, nor should new courses have to be so long they aren't walkable. When I hear longer, longer,longer, that is just the owner/member egos talking if you ask me.

[Paul Richards]

> We are not looking at any increases in distance. Technology is coming to the point where we are not going to get any increases in distance because of technology itself.


I don't believe that statement, Frank, for one darn second.


I'm calling B.S. on you!

 

[Tom_Doak]

Paul:

I will second your call.

Does anyone want to bet me $10,000 that the average driving distance on Tour won't be 5-10 yards longer, ten years from now, if there aren't new regulations on equipment?  Anyone?

Did anyone mention who is paying Mr. Thomas' salary now?  (I really don't know and I did not see it mentioned.)  And, do any equipment companies advertise on The Golf Channel?

Pardon me for being such a skeptic.

[john_stiles]

Craig,

Classic courses may not need to be modified for the average golfer but they do need to be lengthened for an ever increasing  minority of club members where I play.

Everyone is hitting it longer, especially the younger members.

It isn't egos 'driving' the lengthening in my opinion but a growing minority who play quite frequently.   Probably  40 - 60 at the course where I play,  out of 350.    Add in that we host a annual SEC college tourney and a lot of qualifiers and that is plenty enough momentum to 'drive' lengthening.

[Paul Richards]

Brent, describing how the USGA let this technology issue get past them, said it best:

>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.

 

[Paul Richards]

Tony said:

>Corey, I do not believe they would sell the same amount of balls. ... The ball would become a commodity competing on price alone.


What is the harm in this?

If you read "The Future of Golf", it is very obvious that the manufacturers have 'won' - and are, undoubtedly, ruining the GAME OF GOLF.

If the USGA has any nads, they could start with the ball roll-back.  

Making the ball a commodity?  Maybe that would be GOOD for the future of the game.

[Paul Richards]

AG said:

>If the PGA Tour has a problem, why don't they address it?

Agreed.  However, they don't seem to have the cahones for this fight and Finchem seems to be sitting back and waiting for someone else to do it.

You see, the PGA Tour doesn't want to do anything that would jeopardize their extensive pension plan ....

> Why put that at the feet of the USGA entirely?  

Because they are the 'ruling' body for the game here.  You know, "For the good of the game" and all?  My wife and I have been USGA members for many many years.  This year I sent my renewal back without a check - instead they got a note that says when they fix the technology problem, they'll get their check.  

Of course, I got no response ....

>The USGA is such a convenient whipping boy in all of this, but the reality is that the Men's U.S. Open is the only USGA event in which there is a possible problem with distance.

Wrong.  Have you seen a US Amateur? These guys hit the ball a LONG way.  I've played with some of them.  The game has, indeed, changed.  It's no longer about strategy.  It's about hitting the ball as hard as you can, as long as you can, and then hitting a Wedge into a long four or a 7-iron into a "par 5".

Throw in the Mid-Am - 25-year-olds hit the ball a LONG way too.

So the top 3 events hosted by the USGA all face the same issue.

 

[Paul_Turner]

Tom

The average may well go up by 5-10 yards in 10 years but is that a rate that is any greater than in the 70s and 80s when technolgy was relatively static?

Players will continue to get stronger.

I'll bet it's not greater than 10-15 in 10 years even with player strength increase.  But only $100

[john_stiles]

Below the ProV1,  it is very much a competion on price alone.   It is a golf ball bonanza at your local Kmart, Walmart, Target, etc.   Very low prices for spanking new golf balls.  Even less for the used, sold nearly everywhere.

The manufacturers change their product lines every year now for goodness sake. Different size/depth dimples, different dimple patterns, additional layers, revised layer thickness, new materials, new cores, etc. year after year.  If you find a ball you like,  you can't buy it again in about 2 years.  You have to try their new product and maybe another.  

Hey,  wait a minute here,   they seem to have a pretty good plan.  These guys are good.

Even with rollback, someone will be the longest, straightest, have the best spin, etc. just like for ever.  

Dick Rugge reply to my question regarding clubhead speed was perhaps the stock company line ( I think).  "We are monitoring clubhead speeds".

WIth no plan or test in place, for when 120 is not adequate, 'monitoring' puts you right back in the same old situation.

[rgkeller]

At the very least, Mr. Thomas should be deported.

[Kevin_Reilly]

Did anyone mention who is paying Mr. Thomas' salary now?  

The Golf Channel - I think I've seen a few equipment company commercials on there.  

Golf Digest - same

Frankly Golf (an equipment company, maker of the Frankly Frog putter)

Frankly Consulting - "Frankly Consulting offers clients a variety of technical consulting and support services. These services are designed to improve and enhance the game of golf. We associate with the foremost experts in industry, research, and teaching and offer consultation based on the latest scientific findings in the fields of equipment development, psychology, and exercise physiology Our clients include equipment manufacturers, media, golf course architects, real estate and golf course developers, golf associations, corporations, and golf clubs."

[A.G._Crockett]

I think that it is reasonable to assume that we are, in fact, close to the limits of clubhead speed.  In all sports, there seem to be limits of human performance, that, once reached, are only exceeded on occasion and in very small increments.  Baseballs, for instance, can only be thrown by the human body at speeds around 100 mph, and then only by a few with any control whatsoever.  Track and field records, for the most part, are broken in fractions of inches or seconds or meters.  In the case of a golf club, a lighter club might be swung faster than current speeds, but the tradeoffs in distance and control seem prohibitive.

We've now seen what launch monitors can do to maximize distance, but once that is done, it's done.  Turf conditions can't get any better than they are now, clubheads can't get any bigger, and the USGA has now changed the ball requirements to hold the status quo, and gravity seem unlikely to abate.  So where is significant new distance going to come from?

[Brent Hutto]

I think there may be another 20% or so in clubhead speed out there for future generations to acquire but looking at slow motion video of the hardest swingers today that gain in speed may come at the expense of making the golfer's body akin to the baseball pitcher's arm. There's only so many times in a day a baseball can be thrown at 90mph+ and only so many days in a lifetime before something in the shoulder or elbow breaks down beyond repair. It could be that to swing a golf club at 140-150mph will require the same sort of overloading to the point of damage of certain body parts.

However, it seems only fair for the game to allow such prodigous athletic exertion (if it ever becomes possible) to produce greater distance than a "mere" 110mph swing that thousands of golfers can produce today. My sole concern is that the clubface/ball not be allowed to become springier and springier. I think that John Daly carrying a shot 320 yards poses much less of a concern to the future of the game than for the third-best player on my local NCAA men's golf team being able to consistently carry a shot 295 yards.

In my opinion, a 110mph clubhead speed squarely applied to a ProV1 with a Taylor Made driver results in a shot that carries 10-20 yards farther than it should have if the USGA had not fallen down on the job. Mr. Crockett's point is well taken that there may not be an additional 10-20 yards available with that same 110mph swing but it is the USGA's clear and present duty to assure that some yet-unforseen engineering breakthrough does not produce a conforming golf ball that does just that.

[Tom_Doak]

Paul Turner:

You want to take my bet, but change the standard and then only take 1/10 of the bet?  No thanks, but my original offer still stands.  Maybe Mr. Thomas would like to take me up on it if he's so damn sure that we've seen the end of increased distance.

I guarantee you the engineers at Callaway and Ping already know where their next 5-10 yards are coming from.  They are only trying to decide how slowly to roll it out.

[TEPaul]

"Whether these increases in distance emanate from advancing equipment technology, greater athleticism of players, improved player coaching, golf course conditioning or a combination of these or other factors, they will have the impact of seriously reducing the challenge of the game. The consequential lengthening or toughening of courses would be costly or impossible and would have a negative effect on increasingly important environmental and ecological issues. Pace of play would be slowed and playing costs would increase.
The R&A and the USGA will consider all of these factors contributing to distance on a regular basis. Should such a situation of meaningful increases in distances arise, the R&A and the USGA would feel it immediately necessary to seek ways of protecting the game."

The above is from the USGA/R&A Joint Statement of Principles written perhaps two years ago. Perhaps Frank Thomes (read his quote in the initial post) is not aware that the USGA/R&A has at least stated in this joint statement of principles that they may limit distance no matter where it comes from and obviously that includes player strength increases ("athleticism") in the future.

Perhaps no one believe they will act but that's another matter. That joint statement of principles certainly goes farther in principle than they've ever gone before. Previously they only spoke of limiting distance in a technological context and they always previously exempted athleticism as a reason for distance increase Apparently no more---at least in principle.  

[Paul Richards]

I want in on Tom Doak's bet.

This is a no-brainer.

Why would anyone believe that the USGA would suddenly begin to 'get it' and actually do something about it?

 

[PThomas]

I'm with you Paul -- I stopped my USGA "Membership " several years ago because of the technology issue, the fact that they dropped their magazine and their Rare Book reissues, etc

[DMoriarty]

For those of you that are still USGA/Frank Thomas apologists, I just did a quick search and the first mention of Frank Thomas on this site was from September, 1999, by Geoff Shackelford, commenting on that year's Ryder Cup . . .

. . . Because it is fascinating to see the differences from 88 to 99. Yes there was more rough in 88 and more at stake in terms of stroke play. But, to see flip sand wedges being hit in, and duck hook drives carrying the bunkers...hmmm, makes you wonder. And then to pull out some Frank Thomas quotes from recent years and be told that we are imagining such things about the distance the ball is going and be told that there is just a little change in recent years, well it's insulting.Geoff

. . . and while the USGA may have stayed somewhat constant since 1999, the golf equipment hasnt.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()