Geez, Matt. I was trying to remain complementary to Mr. Thomas. If you want my honest answer, I don't think it is possible to ever catch Frank Thomas in a technical error based on his writings and public statements.

Everything he writes on his web site or in magazine columns is utterly bland conventional wisdom, most of it circa 1992 or so. In his equipment Q&A column as well as the couple of times I've seen him on the Golf Channel he deflects every question with some vague generality even when the question tries to be specific. In short, his public persona admits no appraisal of his technical expertise because he either gives a boring non-answer or else issues an overly broad statement of his own opinions about the state of the game.

That said, as I stated before he is no doubt very knowledgable about current equipment. And there may indeed be few if any more knowledgable than Frank about the history of golf equipment over the past few decades. But if I had to hire a consultant to actually solve an engineering problem regarding golf equipment I'd go to one of the hundred or so designers and engineers getting paid to do that at the huge, successful equipment manufacturers that dominate the industry.

It simply doesn't make sense to expect someone who used to work for a regulatory agency "back in the day" to be as up to date and detailed in his knowledge as someone currently working 60-70 hours a week in a top technical position in the industry itself.

[EDIT] Let me put it more succinctly. If you have a question about the theoretical limits on carry distance for the top players in the world, which of these two people would you believe: Frank Thomas or the guy at Taylor Made who custom designs and fits drivers optimized for the Tour players on Taylor Made's payroll?

From Geoff Shackelford's website:

8 drives were added to the 350 and over club, bringing the season tally to 540. There were no 400 yarders last week, so the season total remains 15.

Just got off the phone with Pete Dye. Pete is currently building two courses where PGA Tour events are expected to be held and he said 500 yard par fours are becoming common place. He added that distince is not a big deal, as the long hitters will still bomb driver and hit an 8 iron approach, even into a 500 yard four. My favourite Pete quote: "The golf ball manufacturers have the brain power of weeds..."

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?

The simple answers to your questions are no, no, and yes.  Sure ego plays a role, though I've told myself often I'm not totally full of myself.  I still like the new ball.  It is fun for me.  Also, they don't nick or cut easily, and last a few rounds.

I wrote a lengthy response, which was eaten by my computer, which sometimes mistakes "o + r" as "alt + r".  It was clearly the definitive manifesto on distance.

In short, what I said was:

1.  I saw Tiger in person hit 345 drives at the 1996 U.S. Amateur, at sea level, with little wind and a 43.5 inch wooden driver.

2.  The problem with discussing distance/technology here on GCA is that we have no solution.  It is out of our control.  Since we value the great old courses, our belief that the ball goes too far, especially for strong players, is near unanimous.  I am sure the USGA understands our position.

3.  Pumpkin Ridge is an example of a course designed with the intent to hold major championships.  It is now obsolete, much too easy, even though it was built just 14 years ago.

Brent:

Do you actually believe that Frank Thomas does not stay up-to-date on what is happening? C'mon now -- you're not really serious are you? If you think others are "far beyond" Frank Thomas then you and I are equally far apart.

Ed:

Chick Little sounds about right.

Mike:

Frank Thomas mentioned a number of issues (the long putter, the nature of CORE, etc, etc) to the appropriate people at the USGA. It was not he who sat on their hands when the time called for action. Remember Mike -- the inner sanctum of the USGA at the Executive Cmte level is where the final matters were discussed and fumbled.

You mentioned at the outset how the top players are now able to dial in 350-yard tee shots. I simply opined that the "sky is falling" scenarios you pointed out are wonderful fiction rather than actual fact. Very, very few golfers on the PGA Tour routinely carry the ball 300+yards. It's well and good when people throw forward that they saw ONE particular golfer hit ONE particular drive on ONE partcular day and then proclaim ipso facto that all are doing likewise.

I don't doubt that you will see people on other tours / amateur level hit some large tee shots. But the idea that we have reached epidemic proportions is simply fanning the flames to a willing audience here on GCA. Yes, distance via technology has happened, but when one really analyzes the stats beyond the one-time happening you find it's not as automatic as many proclaim.

Sorry good buddy ...

Do you actually believe that Frank Thomas does not stay up-to-date on what is happening? C'mon now -- you're not really serious are you? If you think others are "far beyond" Frank Thomas then you and I are equally far apart.

I'm sure Frank is way, way more up to date than you or I. That wasn't the original question. You said he "knows more about equipment than just about any other person on the planet". I pointed out that the claim in question was a considerable overstatement...not that there's anything wrong with that...this is the GCA Forum after all. I'm just betting that if you could identify that mostly knowledgable person on the planet, it would be someone earning a living by successfully designing and manufacturing state-of-the-art golf equipment, not being a magazine and TV commentator.

I simply said he is one of the foremost people on the subject of technology or equipment. I stand by that statement.

I'll grant you "foremost" in the sense that he's one of the most visible and well-known names associated with golf equipment. However, keep in mind that for every day Frank spends making public pronouncements about the game of golf there's some really bright guy putting in 12-13 hours slaving away over a Finite Element Analysis system or watching Ernie Els slam test drivers into a launch monitor.

Chris:

Allow me to help your faulty memory banks -- the fairways at Troon were brick hard and the ball Norman hit rolled a good more than you mentioned.

How far did he carry the ball? It wasn't 340 as you mentioned.

In the Winter/Spring swing of the tour, 75 players are averaging 290 yards or better, while 150 (out of a total of 195) are averaging280 or better.

What did Ogilvy say?  How long ago was it when Dan Pohl was the longest driver of the year at 277 yards?  The present leader is a mere 43 yards longer per average drive.

Yep...I stand by my statements.

RobertT:

In answer to your post #16 I think the USGA is working diligently on this distance problem right now. Look at Vernon's report and consider it's potential ramifications for new I&B rules and regs.

I fully realize the USGA's solution to the distance increase may not be on David Moriarty's timetable, but honestly, they live in the real world on I&B and he doesn't. David Moriarty wants the distance problem solved 15 years ago.  

DavidM:

In your reply #18, first of all, let me say how embarrassed I am about my remark you quoted at the beginning of that post. I totally botched the spelling of the plural of analysis---saying something like analysissies   I don't know how that happened and it looks like a bunch of panty-waist analys, don't you think? And I totally scrambled the grammar on the rest of that remark. Sorry, I don't know what happened. Maybe I was suddenly beset upon by some alien cabernet or something.

I will get to the meat of the rest of your post #18 by the by.

"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."

Well then, being the gentleman that you are allow me to take you at your word and to say I must have been momentarily befuddled.  

"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?"

Uh, you're asking me to tell you what I think you think? That's a pretty tall order to ask of a Pennsylvania purist Quaker, David. Could I just buy you a cherry-swirl ice cream cone instead?

"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."

Which chart was I referrring to? Oh boy, that's tough. I think it was the one where the rusty colored line looked like it was trying to fondle the dark skinned line at around 267 yards (which by the way is exactly 4 inches on a 1"=200ft topo and represents the LZ on routing maps which is a great drive of 267 yards in the old days by a stud-muffin like Corey Pavin when he had a cute dark mustache and was really "buff").

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

Perhaps JohnV was confused when you botched the spelling of his last name.  

"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?"

Offended my sensibilities?? Don't get fresh with me, young man---you don't know me that well. But seriously, you have repeatedly said that the ProV created an "exssssPLOSIVE" effect on distance of the elite player and that is just not the case.The elite player simply switched by choice to a ball that had the distance characteristics of the long time legal hard ball and the soft feel of the old high spin ball. You can say that old hard ball wasn't sophisticated enough for the good player until the cows come home but that is not relevent to this discussion of distance increase in an historical sense.

Quote:
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."

You've taken me at my word? How gentlemanly of you. Nevertheless, I feel you should ask your own technical questions of the USGA's Tech Center. Ask them questions about the physics and dynamics of the golf ball and such and not why they didn't solve this problem 15 years ago. I feel they should answer you but perhaps they won't. They very well may have a huge sign in the Tech Center like a restaurant pushing a special that says;

"Whatever you do, if that West Coast wacko who hates all of us and thinks he's smarter than we are calls, do not, repeat, DO NOT give the man a straight answer! If you give him any more than some misleading hypothetical chart you will be fired on the spot."

Watch the Australian broadcast of the 1989 Open from Troon, and in particular Jack Newton's commentary when Norman drove it into the fairway bunker during the playoff.

"He has hit that ball THREE HUNDRED AND FOUR YARDS!!!"

Norman was one of the longer hitters at the time.  Seventeen years later, there are eight players on tour averaging more than that.  There are very few players out there who would even notice a 304 yard drive.

Sure they'd notice it.  They'd hit it 304 and say, "damn I must have really missed that one!"



Matt Ward,

When talking about whether there will be further equipment advances that make the ball go even further, the question isn't Frank Thomas' knowledge of the past and current equipment in golf, but that of the future.  Since to my knowledge he isn't an expert in materials science, aerodynamics and whatever else a top rate engineer designing drivers and balls would need to be, I don't believe he's particularly qualified to judge whether we're at the end of the distance spike or just waiting for the next shoe to drop.

There may be stuff in the labs at Titleist right now that will add another 10 yards in a few years that he doesn't have any reason to see coming -- and while he undoubtedly has some really good contacts in the industry, if the equipment industry wants to avoid new rules on equipment they probably don't want to talk about their great new technology until they can introduce it to the market make a few hundred million getting everyone to replace their equipment BEFORE they get rolled back (with another replacement cycle and more profits)