Brent,

If you'll look at the statistics you'll see that the incremental increases far, far exceed .1% per year.

Just look at the increases subsequent to Ron Prichard's letter.

I'd like to see the game where three hour rounds are the standard, walking is common place and green fees are more reasonable.

Namely, "What game shall we play ?"
1760, 1860, 1910, 1965 or 2005 ?

The issue shouldn't be viewed solely in the context of distance, rather it should be viewed in the context of overall performance, including trajectory, curvature, spin, etc., etc..

To what performance year should the USGA dial back the ball ?

And, Why ?

Just out of curiosity, WHAT ball would the USGA be dialing back?  Given that the premium balls like the ProVI are NOT the longest balls out there, wouldn't the dial-back have to be across the board?  And, since the ProVI's aren't as long as the Pinnacles, Top-Flites, etc., I guess the dial-back for those would have to be larger, right?  So we'd be punishing the lesser golfer by a greater % than the Tour players, right?  Sounds like a plan!  Grow the game by making it harder!

I would assume that the USGA has thought of ALL of the stuff that we have, and then some.  That may be the reason that they are going slower than a lot of us would like.  You know, so they don't screw it up...

Sorry to inject a note of realism.

Adam Clayman asked:

“Isn't the obvious answer to Geoff's question, because they violated the rules? Outside the limits of acceptable COR.”

Here’s Geoff’s question:

“If everything up to now is progress in their view and a natural part of an evolving sport, then why are they stepping in now?”

If, as Geoff says, they are finally stepping in now, or are saying or implying they are, then one does need to ask what has changed from the past in their minds. But, for a moment, lets try taking a look at the specific issue of COR, the specific subject Adam Clayman surmised as perhaps the issue that got their attention.

I think I just may know some of the recent history of COR, particularly insofar as how someone first became aware of its effect on distance, how the USGA became aware of it and then how they felt it contributed to a significant distance spike. Not just that but very coincidentally a friend of mine said something about it about four years ago that really does seem coincidental (insofar as what he had to do with it and the fact I happen to know him). Here’s that quick story.

On a plane to Ireland in 2001 with a group of golfers from my club I was sitting next to a friend of mine who is something of a professional COO and early on in his career for golf manufacturing companies. I can’t remember what year it was he mentioned but while he was the COO of Wilson his company manufactured a composite insert face on a persimmon driver and found they were getting an anomaly with it in their own distance testing. They called the USGA (Frank Thomas) and told him about this anomaly. And then apparently they sent the club to the USGA for testing.

Around 2003, I don’t think I’m mistaken in saying that I mentioned this story to Frank Thomas (Wayne Morrison and Willie Dow were with me) and Frank did confirm that this was around the first time the USGA became aware of an actual driver face COR increase contributing to actual distance increase. (the irony is for years the I&B rules specs included a prohibition against “spring-like effect” but it seems that they’d never been aware of such a thing in a distance enhancing way with a driver.

So what was the USGA’s position at that point (that they first became aware of this distance enhancing anomaly of this composite face)? It may’ve been to deem it non-conforming at that point. However, to do that in a comprehensive way in the context of I&B rules and regs they also had to come up with a test for a COR increase in a driver face and perhaps establish an actual numerical limitation on COR (a new I&B rule on it).

I guess you can see what I’m getting at here. This is probably the way it happens and the reason the October 2005 USGA newsletter mentions that the USGA Tech Center has almost always been in a “reactive” mode and stance (rather than a “proactive” mode) when new technology and new science comes down the I&B pipeline at them. The short answer is when it comes to new technology they have to create a new test to test and analyze it and establish new I&B rules and regs to encompass and limit it. That may be the interesting and recent history of COR and its enhancing effect on distance in the last twenty or so years.

So, I’m not sure who Adam Clayman is referring to when he says “they” broke the rules on COR. Does he mean the USGA or the manufacturers? I assume he means the manufacturers. I will check again with Frank Thomas on this COR history but I think it can be seen that the manufacturers didn’t exactly break the rules on COR----only that when this new technology appeared (COR increase on the face of a driver) there really were no rules in the USGA/R&A regulations to encompass it. That they had to come up a test for it, to analyze it first, and then establish a rule to put limitations on it.

I think the record will show that by the time the USGA’s Tech Center created a test and began analyzing COR on drivers there already was equipment out there that exceeded the limitation of what Frank Thomas was recommending the limitation on COR should be on a driver. What did Frank Thomas recommend the limitation on driver COR should be? The record shows he recommended the COR on the face of a regular persimmon driver (app .78 or .79). Did the Board of the USGA accept and adopt his recommendation? Apparently not.

And then ensued more COR testing and eventually the establishment of .86 as the COR limitation on a driver. Why .86? Probably because at that point there was so much equipment out there up to or at that number. What was Frank Thomas recommendation for a limitation on driver COR at that point? Apparently the record shows he still recommended it should be the COR on the face of a regular persimmon driver (app .78 or .79). But apparently the Board did not accept his recommendation again. Why was that? Perhaps it was that they could see how much equipment was already out there and that if they accepted Frank's recommendation they'd be deeming "non-conforming" a ton of equipment in the hands of golfers at that time. So what, you say? Well, I guess, to them the "so what?" was if that doesn't smell like a mass of lawsuits, then what does?

And then I think we all know what the R&A’s position on COR of a driver was. For four years their position was that they would not adopt the USGA’s recommendation and limitation (first .86 and then later .83 when it could be phased in) because they could not see or could not believe that COR even had a distance enhancing effect.

This should show why the USGA’s October 2005 Newsletter said the Tech Center was most always in a “reactive” mode to new technology coming down the pipllne they were not aware of the effects of. Was the R&A in a “reactive” mode on COR at that time, like the USGA was? I’d say for four years, at least, on driver COR they hadn’t even managed to get to a "reactive" mode-----more like about four years with their heads in the sand before finally figuring it out and endorsing the USGA's "reactive" COR limitation regulation!  

Those are the facts and the realities of COR as I know them, boys. Your recommendation to the USGA Tech Center seems to be that they should've simply adopted NIKE's motto of "Just Do It." Well, when you begin to understand the realities and the legalities of how the USGA/R&A and manufacturer world of I&B really works you may be able to see that a "Just Do It" policy really might've getten them sued up the gazoo. And they probably would've lost to.

What was Frank Thomas's recommendation to effect a COR limitation of app .78 or .79? I don't know, maybe I'll ask him. But it would seem that logically it must have been to just establish a rule on COR of .78 or .79 and give manufacturers enough time to phase that in and give golfers enough time to phase out the "non-conforming" drivers that were out there. If that had happened we may've been all playing with COR drivers with a COR limitation of .78 or .79 for perhaps the last ten years!!  

What were Frank Thomas's recommendations on the onset of the "new-age" golf ball as well as the onset of this other distance enhancing factor they call "optimization" (the other two factors of the three factors (including COR increase) that most attribute the recent (last fifteen years) distance spike to)?

Frank's recommendations on the new age ball seems more complex but the saga of his development and plans for the "USGA Optimization" test is pretty bizarre, at least it seems to me to be.  

Tom Paul,
Excellent and informative post, and thanks for it.  

I have a question.  Do you think it is realistically possible for the USGA to proactive rather than reactive as we go forward? I mean that seriously, and I ask that because it seems to me that the USGA has no good way to anticipate exactly where technology is headed at a given moment.  As you say, first they have to know what the development is, then devise a test and standards, by which time the technology may be in widespread use, if not already exceeded by something even newer.

Given that, maybe saying "2005" as a stopping point is the best that could possibly be done.

Why can't the ball be rolled back?
What would happen if the USGA, R&A, PGA Tour, European Tour, etc., decided that all competitions would be played with a balata?

-Ted

"I have a question.  Do you think it is realistically possible for the USGA to proactive rather than reactive as we go forward? I mean that seriously, and I ask that because it seems to me that the USGA has no good way to anticipate exactly where technology is headed at a given moment."

A.G.

That's the question, and if you read that last USGA October 2005 Newsletter closely that is a lot of what they mention and appear to be focusing on. They even talk about significantly reducing "answer time" on conformance issues.

How will they do that? Firstly, the Tech Center looks at most of these issues differently than we do. To us all it's about is just distance and limiting it immediately. To them it's all about their tests and testing.

Perhaps you're not aware of it but in the last three years (since 2002) the USGA has been conducting a $10 million dollar test on the golf ball and all they can learn about it's potential distance enhancing factors and components. This is clearly their way of getting up to speed and perhaps either ahead of or more abreast of anything that might come down the pipeline regarding golf ball science and technology. I've been aware of this for three years but it was confirmed last week when Dick Rugge spoke to 85 of us. As for distance enhancing effects of "implements" I'd think that would be a bit hazier to forsee what new rules and regulations may be necessary in the future due to new realities and technologies.

The thing we all must keep in mind, though, is for many decades the USGA/R&A has had and does have the ability to deem balls or implements "non conforming" in the context of their I&B rules and regs, ODS etc. But when they do that and have done that in the past those balls and implements are clearly "non-confoming" in the context of their present and current I&B rules and regulations.

What we are talking about here in the last 15-20 years as the three basic factors that contributed to this distance increase (1. COR, 2. a new age ball, 3. "Optimization", and perhaps the prevalence of far lighter materials should be mentioned too) are all factors that were accomplished within the USGA's I&B current Rules and Regulations during those times. Some of that happened because of new technologies they simply did not have rules or regulations for or sufficiently limiting rules or regulations. That's precisely what their "Notice and Comment" period is all about. It's a procedure to formally and legally bring in new rules and regulations and altered ones to encompass and control new realiities and new and unexpected technologies.

Here's what I'd like to see happen in USGA/R&A I&B Rules and Regulations including ODS as both "impliments" and balls relate to it.

1. Add to the present five factors or areas of rules and regulations on golf ball specs, a sixth factor. This would be called "spin rate". For the first time a rule or regulation would be established limiting the MINIMUM amount of spin rate a golf ball could have and still be deemed as "conforming". I would like to see the minimum allowable spin rate on a golf ball be something akin to the spin rate of the balata ball of about 1990. This does not mean the golf ball must be soft or of any particular construction (such as the old 3 piece balata) only that the allowable spin rate of any golf ball must not be less than X.

2. I would like to see COR on the face of drivers or "woods" be set at the limitation Frank Thomas originally recommended when COR as a distance enhancing factor became a reality---eg app .78 or .79.

3. I would like to see the size of the head of a golf club be limited to no more than 350cc.

All the rest of the new technologies---eg light-weight materials, perimeter weighting, whatever, they can keep as "Conforming". "Optimization" (computer testing for the ideal combination of club and ball) I wouldn't even mention as there's no reason to try to stop people from using computers in the future.

Now, how the USGA would actually go about proposing and establishing those new Rules and Regulations I cannot exactly say but I'd assume they'd simply propose doing it through their traditional "Notice and Comment" procedure and if accepted their traditional "lead-in" time of perhaps 3-5 years for manufacturer retooling and compliance and the time to work down present inventories and equipment that's already out there in the hands of golfers.

I believe the intent and the stated reason (on their part) for doing this should be to squarely stand behind golf course architecture (the playing fields of the game they're dedicated to monitoring and preserving) that's current so that it may continue to be effective right on into the future.

I feel the tests today are much better than yesteryear and that in the future the ODS on golf balls and distance should be a "pass/fail" line on "carry" distance only. Perhaps they may even want to rename this testing factor "CDS" ("Carry Distance Standard") rather than "Overall Distance Standard" (ODS).

I think the present MPH test protocol of 120MPH is probably sufficient. I'd advise them to set a CDS limit given the factors above of X (maybe it would be something like 270 yards at 120MPH).

Once that is estatblished the only thing that could conform to a greater carry distance than that (in neutral conditions) would be golfers with swing speeds that exceeded 120MPH.

To me the MPH a player generates is all about skill and if golfers in the future generate swing speeds in excess of 120MPH given the aforementioned rules and regulations, then God love them----let them legally carry the ball more than 270 yards in neutral conditions.

An honest question:

Does the game really need to be easier to 'sell' it?



If so, can golf survive with those that appreciate the challenge it presents?

An honest question:

Does the game really need to be easier to 'sell' it?



If so, can golf survive with those that appreciate the challenge it presents?

I don't think the game needs to be easier than it currently is.  However, that is a different thing than making it harder!

The answer to the second question is "Of course".  However, it might pose growth issues at some point for a game that will always have inherent growth issues due to the time and money involved.

Sean Arble,

To the extent that everyone surpassing the artificial 240 yard maximum objective is the result of "hard work, practice and physical prowess", then the world and the game are as they should be.  That would only happen over very long periods of time.  My simplistic, underdeveloped suggestions are aimed to make the game at the highest levels more about skill and ability over time, and much less dependent on the best designed, manufactured, and calibrated equipment (a PGA Tour player I know told me that by simply spending a few days at the Ping facility in AZ, he picked-up some 20 yards on his drives through fitting a head, shaft, and ball combination to his swing, without losing accuracy- though he now had to pay more attention to some bunkers, hazards, and longer turning points).    

As I've tried to articulate, I am not concerned about the playing masses and modern technology.  I do not recommend meddling with club events, tournaments, weekend games, or corporate outings.

The USGA probably should better define what it considers to be "for the good of the game".  There is a wide range of opinions on this very subject right here on this site.  I know one individual here making a living in the public segment of the business who does not care if more people play the game (he believes that he can compete in a flat or declining market) and longs for the days when the average golfer was more traditional and genteel.   Others believe that "growing the business" 3 - 5% annually is critical if the game is going to survive and eventually return to reasonable economic health.

Pro and high-level amateur golf is important in that it sets the standards or goals and inspires many would-be participants to get out there and do it.  Except for the athletically talented, golf is a very difficult game.  Add its high cost and time demands, and it should not come as a surprise that the game is having a hard time attracting new aspirants.

To the extent that modern technology may help or give hope to the less talented, it is a very good thing.  Unfortunately, like with so many other things in life, technology is more efficiently used by those with greater capabilities.  The result is that the gap between the haves and the have nots continues to increase.

I would probably not be a proponent of the tournament ball if we were not at a time in history when land, zoning, environmental regulations, construction costs, and competitive demands for real estate are so complicated and expensive.  Expanding existing courses and building new longer ones are just not reasonable alternatives anymore.

So, for the good of the game as I define it, I am willing to bifurcate the rules of an already bifurcated game.  What Daley and Woods did on #18 this weekend would not even enter the imagination of 95% of us.  The roll-back is not relevant to us.  If "punishment" is due, apply it to those who merit it.  Let the game and its architecture "evolve" in the current range of 6,500 to 7,500 yards.  For the vast majority this is the relevant range.  For the few who may like the livelier ball and have the capacity to get its maximum benefit, there is no one stopping them from building that rare 8,000 yard monster.

In the final analysis, just like we like courses with diversity and options, we should feel similarly about the rules and traditions of the game.  In spirit, it should all be about choices.  A tournament ball does place limitations on a relative few, but it is not an all encompassing, de-facto curtailment.  If Tiger wants to hit his customized Nike ball, no one says he can't go to Augusta National or Merion and have at it.  It just wouldn't be during the Masters or a potential US Open.  Should the sponsor (presenting authority, ruling body, etc.) not also have choices?  

Why don't those who think that the sky will fall if the ball is dialed back examine what happened to golf in the UK when the small ball was banned and the larger ball was mandated for play ?

Did golf in the UK suffer ?

Or did it continue to be enjoyable, prosper and grow ?

I saw Ran Morrissett play several rounds at Sand Hills using hickories from the early 1900's and he had a great time.

Recently, I lost an incredible amount of distance, and had to alter my thinking and my game, but, I enjoyed playing golf as much as I ever did.

Why do those of you who are opposed to a dial back with the ball and equipment think that the sky will fall and the game will lose its lure ?

IT WON"T.

The sky won't fall and the game will not disappear if the distance the ball flies is decreased.

The sky won't fall and the game will not disappear if the distance the ball flies increases.

The range of possible outcomes is quite limited. The sorts of distance increases seen in the past 15 years may continue indefinitely or at the other extreme the distances that exist now may be "rolled back" by a few percent. There is no chance that a Tour player will average driving the ball 400 yards a couple years from now just like there is no chance that we'll revert to playing persimmon woods and wound balata balls. However it works out, the sky will not fall.