I think Pete Lavallee's last post has got it right. I keep reading these recent posts that are attempting to explain if recent distance increases, particularly above the old conformance test speed of 109 are linear, sublinear or superlinear. It really doesn't matter or I should say it really DIDN'T matter to the USGA/R&A before they went to their new test protocols AND their recent "Joint Statement of Principles".

Some on here even wonder why Frank Thomas and the USGA test center didn't use a series of swing speeds of 90, 100, 110, 120 or even 130 to test the conformance of golf balls. The answer is, and this is from Frank, that it didn't matter to them because at that time it didn't seem relevant.

The next question is, and one put to Frank, was why then did he pick a test conformance speed of 109mph? The answer is because all one really needs for a "pass/fail" distance conformance test is a speed to test at. Frank picked 109 as a logical choice because it seemed high enough way back then where if anyone was actually swinging faster than that it was so rare as to be statistically irrelevant or just plain irrelevant. (and friends and neighbors this may very well explain why the USGA basically invited Davis Love to come to the test center following his performance at the Walker Cup at PVGC in whatever that was 1988 or 1989). I was there, and I heard what some of those USGA officials were saying at that Walker Cup. You should have seen the looks on their faces! It sure looked to me like a collective wakeup call to what the future was about to bring. DLIII had his wrist all taped up, he pulled out of the US Am and apparently declined the USGA test center invitation to have his swing speed and distance results tested.

Along about this time Frank began to become concerned about the distance enhancing effects of COR in drivers!

Did that have any influence on the 109mph ball distance conformance test? No not really until it apparently started showing the effects once the USGA test center screwed a metal driver into Iron Byron's metal arm instead of a persimmon driver (Frank recommended to the USGA board to limit COR to the app level of a persimmon driver (app .079) but they did not accept his recommendations apparently).

Probably along about the same time (maybe early to middle 1990s) Frank started to become concerned that a new "super" ball with the soft feel of the high spinning three piece ball and the low spin rate of the two piece ball instead of the high spin rate of the soft balls all good players used at that time might become a reality and he warned the board about that (although there are board members who dispute that) but according to Frank the board wasn't that concerned about his warning on the distance enhancing effects of that either!

Frank then created the USGA "optimization test" (I'm sure most of us know what that was by now). That was to accomplish basically two things; 1. To help take the USGA up to speed in a testing sense of all the symbiotic relationships and effects of the various combinations of balls and clubs and swings etc, etc, with the goal of analyzing the distance effects of complete “optimization” that way. 2. To franchise out the USGA’s “optimization test” to the manufacturers so that everyone (USGA and manufacturers) could be more on the same page rather than having the USGA always REACTING to new combinations of technologies and what it all meant in a distance sense.

The USGA’s new “Optimization Test” was introduced by the USGA to a certain amount of fanfare (remember that on their webstite?), apparently the manufacturers really put their foot down about accepting the “optimization test” it was dropped as a test procedure by the USGA and franchised out to the manufacturers apparently. Shortly after that Frank was gone and replaced by Dick Rugge.

In the last three years the ball conformance test swing speed was increased to 120mph (obviously to get more realistic with the real world of tour players and strong players et al with COR, "super" balls, clubs, and the computerized optimization of it all) and the USGA/R&A came out with their “Joint Statement of Principles” which in essence says if distance increases from here ‘significantly’ or “meaningfully’ the USGA/R&A will do something about it regardless of WHAT is causing it (this includes balls, clubs, roll, and even the strength of the player----apparently they really mean ANYTHING AT ALL that increases distance!).

So it doesn’t really matter whether the distance increases in the last ten or so years have been linear, sub-linear, or super linear, they’re saying if it increases ‘significantly” or ‘meaningfully’ from here FOR ANY REASON they’re going to be doing some deeming of “Nonconforming”, as they’ve always had the ability to do.

Will they do that? And what does ‘significant’ and ‘meaning increase’ mean to them? Those appear to be the questions now.

The question of actually limiting the MINIMUM amount of spin rate on the ball to conform is certainly an interesting possibility that very well may bring things into some form of stabilization regarding distance. They’ve monitored spin rate but they have never put a limitation on the minimum amount of spin rate of the ball to conform.

Would an implemented rule and regulation on the minimum amount of spin rate of the ball to be an effective deterent to distance through it’s effects on trajectory and sideways motion of a ball hit around 120mph render “nonconforming” balls on the market today? You bet your life it would---probably almost all of them. So the USGA to attempt to implement something like that would have to go to their “Notice and Comment” procedure and give the manufacturers a fair enough amount of time (this is legal so as not to be sued for restraint of trade) to produce and market as well as a provision to grandfather all the balls that are out there today and basically let them take the effect of Gresham’s Law much the same way they did it with the “small ball” years ago.

At least that’s the way I read it all and see it now.  

"However, no matter how forcefully the USGA states its principles and no matter how eloquently you spell out what will happen at some point in the indefinite future the bottom line is I'll believe it when I see it."

Brent:

No kidding! I'm with you pal!

For a few years now I've been concerned that one of these days the USGA/R&A is going to win the battle but lose the war!  

Brent:

Regarding your last two paragraphs I can understand your feelings but I've got to tell you that, in my opinion, you simply don't understand how the USGA/R&A works and has always worked, and perhaps even has to. Believe me, that's no knock on you whatsoever!

If one looks very carefully at the chain of events here---COR, new "super" ball (unexpected), old test procedures that stayed too long in relation to manufacturer innovation recently, concerns of legality and liability (necessities of the timing of notice and comment period, grandfathering balls or equipment and "Gresham's Law", coming up to speed on basically being "tricked" within their own I&B rules and regs and how to address that in the future, their new and fundamentally different position on distance "principles" etc----I think the USGA/R&A is probably right about on their usual schedule regarding how they've ever dealt with their major ball and equipment problems, or any major problems  throughout their history---eg haskel ball, steel shafts, Schnectedy putter, one size ball, stymie rule, unification of playing rules etc, etc.

I know what you're saying and what you feel---but this is just the way it goes. In this sense with the USGA's recent actions, I'm in total agreement with JohnV---eg please just give them the time and chance to do the right thing!

The difference today from the way it's been throughout their past dealings with these issues, in my opinion, is the manufacturers. Not that they haven't always been interested in progress and innovation and the increase in distance---they have been, ever since golf began in America. The real difference today, to me, is now the manufacturers are far more adverserial towards the USGA/R&A---I think they smell the time coming where and when they just don't need the USGA/R&A anymore! The thing that will determine that, as it always has, is the golfing public! Will the golfing public go with the USGA/R&A in the future as they have in the past? I don't know--it's so hard to say right now with all that's going on. Tennis thought they might 40 years ago and that just didn't happen. What's really different about golf from tennis in that vein? THAT, is precisely what all of us need to seriously concentrate on---like right now!

Is the USGA/R&A at a major crossroads right now? Probably!

Just had an excellent conversation with the tech center. Numerous items of the evolution in the last ten or so years, technical questions of the past, present and perhaps future were answered and confirmed. Also a few things that are being discussed on possible technical procedures and effects, timing, perhaps some scenarios for timing on decision making and the procedures used were discussed. Interesting stuff and very similar to much of what's been supposed on here.

"It appears that both a grass roots and divergent interest movement is nearing critical mass on the distance issue.  What alarmed me was the apparent acceptance by the USGA of today's distances as the new "status quo"."

An excellent point Pat!

I think you just might find that the answer lies in the fact that the very nature of the USGA and R&A has been throughout their existences one where they've always felt quite comfortable with the "status quo". If one looks at their histories one sees two organizations that have never been inclined to leap at progress and the future nor to return to the past either!  

Say "status quuuooooooo" 25 times very slowly! It's actually quite soothing and comforting!  

TEPaul,

Previous actions/reactions by the USGA & R&A are understandable because, in the past, the incidences of occurance have been in minimal increments over long periods of time, whereas the recent changes have been in quantum leaps over a relatively short period of time, NOW requiring a different approach.

If you take a step back, as a disinterested party, why wouldn't you want a ball to perform to certain fixed standards, rather be subjected to ongoing juicing in the form of technology ?

If you want to do something "for the good of the game", you have to implement A policy for the "game" not vested interests.

Help us Obie Won KaHootie, you're our only hope.