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.